Jump to content

Red_Wolf_84

Members
  • Content Сount

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2028

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Red_Wolf_84

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Red_Wolf_84

    ST 0.9.7, changes to test ships

    What is the point of DefAA on the US BB line when the rest of the ship is still objectively garbage? I can't see why it was chosen to buff the only known trait American ships have while ignoring every reason nobody will play them.
  2. Red_Wolf_84

    ST, changes to AA and detectability ranges by air

    Its been said before, this is a bad idea. 7s is too long. It does prevent the reactionary AA toggle DDs do now, but it also makes them more vulnerable since it means they either defend with AA or they can't basically. The reduction... I don't like with this. It doesn't make sense. "Preliminary AA range" is basically saying "Aircraft scouting range" since the boosted AA range lights up the ship. This seems like a wasted effort.
  3. Red_Wolf_84

    Submarine Battles results and work on submarines

    Wow, it looks like some of my requests were put in. This is weird. Not exactly the same way I put it, but I do like these changes at least. The Ping: Loving the change for guidance and increasing difficulty for ignoring torpedo protection. Skilled players will be a nightmare, while Joe Average won't feel left out. I like it. Battery Mechanic: Love it. You don't get full recovery underwater, and when low it makes the sub sluggish giving other players a chance to take appropriate action, while still leaving the sub a window to get the heck outta dodge. The visual range limitations is a nice touch with it. How much will the underwater sight be restricted however? I feel it shouldn't be a small amount, but also that it shouldn't completely blind them. Wish I knew the number. ASW for BB and HCR: Like the idea. Looks rough, but I like it. Now when will CVs get some... Hydrophone: Perfect addition for others to see it better. I see it working well with BBs and HCRs shadowing DDs and LCRs. Detectibility changes: These are good. I was finding it odd that Subs were doing a better job scouting than DDs, and this makes it more even. However, I do think that aircraft should be able to spot Subs easier still... Depth changes: I like it. Again, I wish for some more specifics, but I guess we'll see later. For now it does sound like it can help limit the bobbing effect Subs had to dodge ASW and HE some, so it sounds fine. Overall, it sounds promising. I like it so far.
  4. Red_Wolf_84

    ST 0.9.7, American battleships

    But all this talk just points out that these ship concepts are pretty much trash on arrival with their combination. The only good points are highest damage potential and high shell arc for plunging fire. Everything else, even including that higher shell arc, adds to detriments with the ships. Slow speed Massive turning orbit Weak armor Things are basically stellar-sized targets to be shot at Pathetic secondaries Slow shell velocity, with high shell arc making avoiding the fire easier to avoid Horrible dispersion and sigma leaving the RNG headaches Deathly slow reload times i honestly can't say that the potential damage is worth the RNG gambling with every other aspect just asking for the ship to be farmed to death. It can be just about guaranteed that the speed, size and turning are probably never going to change, and unlikely they will up the armor or secondaries on it to compensate, which would be the logical addition to it. Would have loved something like long-range, slow reload secondaries to help with discouraging close fights on American cruisers and battleships because they lack torpedoes, but whatever. That leaves only changes to the main guns to hopefully compensate the issues. Faster reloads and or better accuracy is basically the best I am hoping for otherwise I can't see the reason to grind up the tree with them.
  5. Red_Wolf_84

    PT 0.9.7, balance changes

    Would prefer the return of the C hulls to the American DDs than just a DefAA buff.
  6. Red_Wolf_84

    ST 0.9.7, American battleships

    Slower the shell, higher the arc and longer travel time to the target. You will need to aim further ahead, and it gives the target longer time to try and react and dodge the shots.
  7. Red_Wolf_84

    ST 0.9.7, American battleships

    The sarcasm is failing to mention the Flordia had Torpedoes iirc.
  8. Red_Wolf_84

    ST 0.9.7, Kitakami

    cLeARlY ThERe iS nOt EnOUgH tOrPeDOeS If you can't tell my sarcasm, this ship sounds like a horrible idea. If anything, I insist on a hefty teamkill penalty where the team damage is instantly reflected back on the first hit. Aim good or don't use.
  9. Red_Wolf_84

    Submarine Game Mode Feedback

    I played on public when it was out, and I gotta say for most of it looking back I don't have too much to complain about, but there was 3 points that really got to me that needs addressing and a couple addendums. 1) The bobbing or 6m/5m exploit around ASW and surface HE attacks against subs. This has to go somehow. I have thought about alot of options, but I only really had one idea but it would drastically change the gameplay so I am not sure. The thought was to have the depth controlled like the throttle, having set depths of Surface, Shallow, Operating and Deep. While shifting depths, the action would have a slight delay and torpedoes could not be launched until it evened out, a bit after reaching it. It would slow the process and open up more of a window of threat for the sub. As it stands with the bobbing the threat is only how fast you can react, and there is little prediction that can be done like against other ships with steering/movement where you can normally guess the shots. The fixed depths and slower depth changes would also be nice to force the surface level to be more visible, as the periscope running makes it almost as safe as underwater half the time and the quick bobbing to dodge shots is more frustrating to try to hit. To say nothing of the magical 0 damage ASW Depth Charges at 5m. Those things should hit surface ships, even if its for some light damage, the 0 damage is dumb, as I'm sure many have noted. 2) The battery purpose. I can get around the unlimited oxygen in this game, but the Battery should be needed to launch torpedoes and run above 1/4 throttle underwater. Once your out of power you should not be able to run as efficiently underwater or launch torpedoes. I had too many games where I could be at my last breath, run out of all power for a while then just randomly pop a torpedo while maneuvering at full tilt before charging for a last strike to one-up who was chasing me. Or have the inverse happen, it does not lend itself to a rewarding or tactical feel in the battle. You should need to plan the power drain more, without that it is just a nuisance for the homing attacks or not than something of importance. Almost should just get rid of it otherwise. 3) Carriers need ASW. I cannot remember who to credit, but the thought was a timed consumable ASW drop, like a fighter screen. The idea being to summon an ASW craft that can spot and attack subs in an area for a period of time. Either make it incredibly deadly with limited use, or just have it as a spotter with light or moderate damage with repeated uses, like a recovery charge similar to aircraft recovery on CVs now after you use them. Or a new fighter squadron for ASW for them. Either way, the current dynamic is heavily on Destroyers and Light Cruisers to handle Subs, and it would go a long way in splitting the load to have Carriers pull some of the wight too, not to mention it was a carrier's job for it. A minor gripe with this would be that air detectibility of Subs should be higher when they are shallow and still be spottable at operating depth, only really invisible at the deep depths. It was one thing Carriers did with spotting patrols after all, having the Subs just be able to hide anytime only adds to the frustration I found. Other than that, I can't find much else to argue over on them. They seem fine in other gameplay, but did feel a bit ridiculous to have 3 or I think the rare 4 Subs in a match. If they were like carriers and only 1 or 2 it would add more dynamic to it than just remove targets for other surface ships. Some of the best games were the 1 or 2 Subs per team matches. It was more of a guess what to focus on, and the risk felt better balanced with how the teams managed or exploited it. With 3 Subs the pack damage could be exploited to a ridiculous level and it drew too much from targets that heavy Cruisers and Battleships could deal with, leaving them in a totally unfair situation once the ASW was knocked out, which was easier to do with less ships that could have it. The only last thing might be an AI issue. You gotta do something to have the AI stop firing at Subs they cannot damage. Too many times I was in matches with AI that were firing at a sub deeper than 6m where the shells cannot deal damage, completely ignoring other ships that threaten them. Its quite exploitable and annoying when you try to run by in say a Destroyer to drop ASW and be killed by an AI teammate that broadsided you from across the map.
  10. Red_Wolf_84

    ST 0.9.7, American battleships

    Well, that is the thing. WoWS is an arcade game, not exactly a historical simulation. Otherwise the USSR ship line would look alot more sparse.
  11. Red_Wolf_84

    ST 0.9.7, American battleships

    Looking back at the Tillman 1 featured in Drafchinifel's video, I could totally get behind a quad sextuplet turret layout on this branch. I'd wait 40 seconds to lob 24 shells all at once.
  12. Red_Wolf_84

    ST 0.9.7, American battleships

    Needs more armor, and less long-range sniping. Would find it far more enjoyable if battleships were being introduced to brawl and be up-front fighting than camping in the back sniping because they can't risk being shot at.
×