|
Thronde posted:Does the mod have a better UI like some of the tanks mods? I hate how they have the crossbars so inaccurate. It feels like "Hey guys, let's throw some compass and elevation marks onto the sight for effect! SO naval!" I don't think it can do that reliably, I tend to use it as a mid range heavy hitter, get in a group with some BCs or another BB and give them some heavy support. The guns turn and reload way to slow to be solo anywhere but it can happily out turn most torp attacks so makes a great support ship.
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
Thronde posted:Does the mod have a better UI like some of the tanks mods? I hate how they have the crossbars so inaccurate. It feels like "Hey guys, let's throw some compass and elevation marks onto the sight for effect! SO naval!" I usually drive to the islands in the map and hang out around them, something to nullify enemy BB's range advantage while at the same time being able to send damage out.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
So, uh, the Gremyashchy...    Those 130mm guns do very nasty things to japanese CLs. Magni fucked around with this message at 18:10 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
I'm pretty bad in DD's, so I don't think I've ever had a game close to that, although I've had some decent ones (mostly due to blind luck I think). I love cruisers and typically do very well in them, but my highest damage game (that I know of or waited around to see the end screens on) was in the Nagato:    This thing can be quite the wrecking ball sometimes, even without scoring many citadel hits, which I'm bad at.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Hey Destroyer captains, if you thought trying to play your fragile tin cans and contribute wasn't hard enoughquote:- Ability for your secondary equipment to fire at torpedo barrages to stop them (cruisers only) and save your Battleship allies;  quote:- Ammo loadouts will be introduced (shell capacity for ships); Not so steamy now, are you Mr. Cleveland? And the rest of the Q&A quote:- Signal flags (already disclosed by devs into the community) which increase certain characteristics of ships, earn them by completing missions;
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:- As of now, the current beta gives a lot of exp/credits per battle, this is intentional to help players research and play their desired ships, once the game reaches open beta or release, the rates will get properly changed, otherwise, in a good 2 or 3 evenings playing, a normal player would be able to reach a Yamato without much effort; This is absolute bullshit btw. Even with about half the games played on premium, it took me over 200 matches to reach the Yamato and I'm not exactly the worst pubbie if my w/r is of any indication after 1k games. 200 might be a bit low for reaching T10, but that's hardly 2-3 days unless you spend like half the day exclusively playing WoWs.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:You say this, but the IJN stopped having good carrier wings right around the same time they stopped having carriers. Because US carrier aircraft (and, admittedly, submarines too!) kept sinking them. You're using ship sinkings as a surrogate for ability to score hits. That isn't a particularly good metric because US ships held together vastly better under fire. For example, Coral Sea second day: US: 3 bomb hits on Shokaku, no torpedo hits. Japan: 2 torpedo hits, 2 bomb hits and several near misses on Lexington, one bomb hit and up to 12 near misses on Yorktown. Unlike in later battles, the greater number of hits on Lexington sunk her because the US damage control wasn't beyond the wildest dreams of the Japanese by that point. Next up is Midway, where Kaga took four or five direct hits, Akagi took one direct hit and a near miss, and Soryu took at least three hits. The two ships that took three hits were ablaze and already blatantly doomed, and Akagi also succumbed to that single hit. The first attack on Yorktown hit her with three bombs. The second attack on Yorktown hit her with two torpedoes. Hiryu then took four or five bombs that gutted her. That's the end of the first day and at this point the US have gotten off a total of six combined deckloads of planes against the Japanese and scored fourteen or fewer hits all up. The Japanese got off two deckloads of planes, and scored five hits with those. Considering how getting past CAP is a numbers game and the last few squadrons did wildly disproportionate damage in large part because they arrived as three dive bomber squadrons, a torpedo squadron and a fighter squadron at about the same time, Hiryu was operating at a huge disadvantage and her pilots still scored a lot of hits compared to their numbers. The battle's full of stuff like torpedo formations getting shredded with fighter squadrons nearby failing to escort them and so on. It's also drat lucky the Arashi was keeping the Nautilus pinned down, without her Enterprise's strike doesn't show up and hit Kaga and Akagi. I'd rather not get into the Eastern Solomons or Santa Cruz, but I'll get into what it took to sink Hornet, and it's a lot. In the end though comparing the ability to score hits of two sides by comparing sunk ships is silly. The Japanese lost a carrier to a single bomb, and four or five hits was usually a death sentence. The US at its worst lost one to two bombs and two torpedoes and then changed their damage control so their next two carrier losses were the Yorktown and Hornet. Yorktown took three bombs, two torpedoes, a night uncrewed, two more torpedo hits from submarine torpedoes and a friendly destroyer's entire depth charge load cooking off and Hornet took three bomb hits, a crashing plane, two torpedoes, and another crashing plane and was salvageable before she took yet another torpedo, another bomb, and was then hit with multiple torpedoes and 400 destroyer shells. The Japanese considered taking her as a war trophy because she was still floating but instead finished her off with four more torpedoes. If the Enterprise had been Japanese the three bombs she took at Eastern Solomons would have likely destroyed her and Yorktown likely wouldn't have eaten two strikes the way she did had she been Japanese. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 19:32 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Hey Destroyer captains, if you thought trying to play your fragile tin cans and contribute wasn't hard enough Also limited ammo is the dumbest loving thing imaginable and probably even worse than the pointless destroyer nerfs. Magni posted:This is absolute bullshit btw. I'm almost positive this is what wargaming expects.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Also limited ammo is the dumbest loving thing imaginable and probably even worse than the pointless destroyer nerfs. It really depends on what the limits are. In the final battle of the Bismark, both the British BB's were low on both fuel and ammo. If the limits are too low, then yea it will be stupid. But if it's like most tanks in WoT, then it should be fine, as it was pretty rare to run out (with some notable exceptions like the uber British TD that only carried a dozen rounds, etc.).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
I don't know about historical ships, but modern ships just have an absurd amount of ammo. Was it common for ships to run out in battle? I find it hard to believe. Edit: I'm having a hard time finding info but it looks like around 30 minutes of sustained constant firing is reasonable. 500-600 rounds or so for a 5 inch. Battleships just shouldn't run out even if they fire every single time the guns are ready. Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 20:29 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Limited torpedo reloads concern me more than gun ammunition, but that would be one way to tone down the Nicholas and Minekaze.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:You're using ship sinkings as a surrogate for ability to score hits. That isn't a particularly good metric because US ships held together vastly better under fire. For example, Coral Sea second day: Yeah, it's obvious that there isn't going to be one, single factor responsible for the outcome of the war in the Pacific. Number of hits is just as arbitrary as sinkings, but more importantly you're focusing on the very few situations where the Japanese carrier planes actually managed to sink things, while omitting the vast majority of the war in which they did very little of consequence. It's one hell of a stretch to say that the side that actually sunk most of the enemy fleet with carrier based airplanes over the course of the war had no idea how to do strike packages, while the side that sunk a small handful of ships early on, then proceeded to never sink anything larger than a picket ship ever again ~totally did~. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 20:53 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
How do I remove the aim mod? I'm feeling fairly capable these days, and it'd be nice to be able to attribute that more directly to me than a mod.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Was it common for ships to run out in battle? I find it hard to believe. I'm not familiar with ships ever running out in battle, but they certainly did run low, light cruisers in particular could burn through shells like nobodies business with their high rate of fire and limited magazines; when Oldendorf's group annihilated the Japanese Southern Force in the Surigao straight, his battleships expended enough AP ammunition doing so that it was considered possible they could have run out in an extended battle with the Central Force, if they'd broken through from Samar, which they did not.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Edit: Can anyone give me some advice for upgrades on the Des Moines? Specifically, I'd like to know wether the gunn accuracy upgrade is worth it over 20% longer AA range.Warbadger posted:Yeah, it's obvious that there isn't going to be one, single factor responsible for the outcome of the war in the Pacific. Number of hits is just as arbitrary as sinkings, but more importantly you're focusing on the very few situations where the Japanese carrier planes actually managed to sink things, while omitting the vast majority of the war in which they did very little of consequence. It's one hell of a stretch to say that the side that actually sunk most of the enemy fleet with carrier based airplanes over the course of the war had no idea how to do strike packages, while the side that sunk a small handful of ships early on, then proceeded to never sink anything larger than a picket ship ever again ~totally did~. And obessing about sunk ships does not actually make a real argument at all in that regard. In fact, number of hits contrasted to number of sorties is a much better way of determining it than mere sinkings - and the japanese before losing most of their fully-trained pilots at Midway did consistently more with less under often less advantageous cirumstances in that regard compared to anything US carrier aviation pulled off until quite a bit later into the war. Magni fucked around with this message at 21:13 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
grrarg posted:Limited torpedo reloads concern me more than gun ammunition, but that would be one way to tone down the Nicholas and Minekaze. How many loving handouts to lovely battleships are they going to make? It's not like Japanese destroyers can even launch more than 7 times a match.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:It's one hell of a stretch to say that the side that actually sunk most of the enemy fleet with carrier based airplanes over the course of the war had no idea how to do strike packages, while the side that sunk a small handful of ships early on, then proceeded to never sink anything larger than a picket ship ever again ~totally did~. In the beginning the US had no idea how to do a proper strike package. They did learn, but at the start of the war the Japanese were way ahead in conducting carrier ops. NTRabbit posted:
loving  at the Sims being anything close to "OP." If they nerf it, they're going to nerf the entire US destroyer line.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I don't know about historical ships, but modern ships just have an absurd amount of ammo. The other answers make it sound like the US 5" guns will have ammo problems, which is a terrible goddamn way of balancing them (and they aren't overpowered in the first place). grrarg posted:Limited torpedo reloads concern me more than gun ammunition, but that would be one way to tone down the Nicholas and Minekaze. Considering it's wargaming they're a lot more likely to "fix" destroyers by making them all poo poo instead of by bringing the high tier ships up to the same level as lower tier, though. edit: El Disco posted:loving Warbadger posted:Yeah, it's obvious that there isn't going to be one, single factor responsible for the outcome of the war in the Pacific. Number of hits is just as arbitrary as sinkings, but more importantly you're focusing on the very few situations where the Japanese carrier planes actually managed to sink things, while omitting the vast majority of the war in which they did very little of consequence. It's one hell of a stretch to say that the side that actually sunk most of the enemy fleet with carrier based airplanes over the course of the war had no idea how to do strike packages, while the side that sunk a small handful of ships early on, then proceeded to never sink anything larger than a picket ship ever again ~totally did~. The US also got a chance to learn from their early experiences. Japan never had much of a chance to learn over the course of the war; they lost all their carrier strength as the US was just starting to get it right. James Garfield fucked around with this message at 21:25 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Magni posted:And obessing about sunk ships does not actually make a real argument at all in that regard. In fact, number of hits contrasted to number of sorties is a much better way of determining it than mere sinkings - and the japanese before losing most of their fully-trained pilots at Midway did consistently more with less under often less advantageous cirumstances in that regard compared to anything US carrier aviation pulled off until rather very late into the war. There as just as many reasons outside of the abilities of the strike group or their commanders that could have influenced the number of hits in the cherry picked examples. Less wind over the target, a more effective CAP over one fleet than the other, luck, etc. After all, when examining battles in which the Japanese carrier aircraft mounted successful attacks on non-DD warships you're looking at a grand total of 3 battles - all in the first year of the war. That's a pretty tiny sample size to base your judgements on. The sunken ship metric at least covers the entire time frame and includes all battles and engagements. And yes, actually, comparing the number of ships sunk by carrier aircraft actually is a thing to look at when discussing how comparatively effective Japanese/American carrier aircraft were at sinking ships. Particularly when the results were so ridiculously lopsided. James Garfield posted:You're failing to mention that Japan effectively didn't have carrier aviation for a significant fraction of the war. Of course the US carriers were more effective. The Japanese had carriers all the way into 1945, with the largest number of Japanese carriers sunk in 1944. They just didn't really accomplish much. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 21:42 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
grrarg posted:Limited torpedo reloads concern me more than gun ammunition, but that would be one way to tone down the Nicholas and Minekaze. You cannot possibly be serious. Destroyers, especially IJN ones, already have extreme difficulties effectively contributing to the battle outside their torpedoes and point capping. Now Wargaming is introducing a mechanic to screw over the higher tiers of them even more, given they're allowing cruisers to use an ability that recharges in HALF THE TIME it takes high tier destroyers to reload their torpedoes to destroy said torpedoes. The high tiers should not have reload times of loving 3+ minutes for their torpedoes, which is what it is at the moment. It should probably be half of that. VV edit: Well that's a start at least, if still probably too high. Lord Koth fucked around with this message at 21:37 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Before we go nuts, I should point out that I don't know if they are limiting torpedo reloads. I was just responding to that unsourced Q&A a few posts up.James Garfield posted:That's the thing, those ships don't really need it. The Minekaze is straight up better than the Mutsuki, but that's mostly because the Mutsuki really is that bad. I wouldn't pick the Minekaze as the strongest tier 5.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
I liked infinite ammo  grrarg posted:One bit of good news is people that got into the public 3.1 test this weekend report that T6-10 Japanese torpedo reload times were lowered around 20%
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:There as just as many reasons outside of the abilities of the strike group or their commanders that could have influenced the number of hits in the cherry picked examples. Less wind over the target, a more effective CAP over one fleet than the other, luck, etc. After all, when examining battles in which the Japanese carrier aircraft mounted successful attacks on non-DD warships you're looking at a grand total of 3 battles - all in the first year of the war. That's a pretty tiny sample size to base your judgements on. The sunken ship metric at least covers the entire time frame and includes all battles and engagements. Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz are four battles, and Japanese aviation continually came off quite well in terms of hits scored per deckload when compared to US ships. There's no point in adding more battles if you don't even attempt to normalize for the US having more battles to try in. Second, what comparing the number of ships sunk tells you is how effective Japanese planes are at sinking American ships, and vice versa. Either US carriers were drastically more durable or the Japanese managed to somehow make vastly less effective bombs in the 500 pound range. Considering the documented inability of Japanese carriers to deal with fires in cases where US carriers were fine, it's pretty obvious that sinking a US carrier is harder than sinking a Japanese carrier, and when the US got caught out with the Franklin unprepared for an attack, she did suffer badly from two such bombs. So when attacking the same type of ships, the greater ability of the Japanese carrier groups to score hits means they would likely do more damage per deckload. I have no doubt that Japanese carriers striking other Japanese carriers would have been as damaging if not considerably more so. As far as other factors go, US CAP was generally considerably more effective at making sure all targets got engaged because of radar and the CIC which had debuted with the Hornet, while Japanese CAP was badly organized and could be dragged into bad positions, as well as relying heavily on the low count of 20mm ammo in the Zero.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:You cannot possibly be serious. Destroyers, especially IJN ones, already have extreme difficulties effectively contributing to the battle outside their torpedoes and point capping. Now Wargaming is introducing a mechanic to screw over the higher tiers of them even more, given they're allowing cruisers to use an ability that recharges in HALF THE TIME it takes high tier destroyers to reload their torpedoes to destroy said torpedoes. Point capping is pretty drat important and torpedoes are their primary weapon, so I'm not really sure what else they should be effectively contributing with. Note that torps are supposed to be getting harder to spot from the air, which is going to be a pretty hefty buff at all tiers.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
It's also important to note that unlike America, Japan was largely unable to translate the experience of their veteran pilots into lessons and training for their rookies. The US had a training carrier in the Great Lakes and the fuel to ensure that every single navy pilot had a few carrier landings under their belt before they were sent out. Rotating their crews also meant that they'd get a chance to pass on their experience. One note about Midway is that despite the staggered and sometimes unescorted attacks by the American squadrons, the Japanese personnel were seriously stressed. Land-based bombers from Midway barely hit anything but you can bet their nerves were frayed because they couldn't catch a break from being under attack.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:There as just as many reasons outside of the abilities of the strike group or their commanders that could have influenced the number of hits in the cherry picked examples. Less wind over the target, a more effective CAP over one fleet than the other, luck, etc. After all, when examining battles in which the Japanese carrier aircraft mounted successful attacks on non-DD warships you're looking at a grand total of 3 battles - all in the first year of the war. That's a pretty tiny sample size to base your judgements on. The sunken ship metric at least covers the entire time frame and includes all battles and engagements. That was more due to the discrepancy in planes than the carriers or tactics. They basically did nothing in 1943 as they were rebuilding their air wings, and by the time 1944 rolled around the planes were mostly obsolescent anyways. The people in charge basically did not give a poo poo about naval aviation, which meant it was low-priority both in terms up technological upgrades and production. Zeroes, which were being used at the beginning of the war, were still the main fighter at the end of the war - if slightly upgraded. They were good at the beginning; they were hopelessly outclassed by 1944. So trying to tie this to tactics when one side had a massive edge both numerically and technologically is rather silly. Hell, if I recall correctly the number of carrier aircraft producing in the entirety of 1942 was in the double digits. Around 40-50, if I'm remembering right. Also, stating that they lost more carriers in 1944 than any other year when tying it to a discussion about carrier effectiveness is incredibly deceptive. Most of those extra losses were in escort carriers mostly for things like training or convoy escort. Most of them were also lost to subs, and thus completely irrelevant to a discussion of air wing efficacy. In actual relevant carriers, they lost 4 fleet carriers in 1944, which you may recognize as the same number lost in 1942. Of course, of those 4 one was deliberately sacrificed as bait and had no planes, and another wasn't actually carrying an air wing(and sunk by a sub). Oh, and Shinano, which besides being sunk by a sub and carrying no air wing, also only had the capacity of a light carrier anyways. Of light carriers, they lost 1 in 1942 and 3 in 1944, all without air wings and one of which was by naval gunfire anyways. Warbadger posted:Point capping is pretty drat important and torpedoes are their primary weapon, so I'm not really sure what else they should be effectively contributing with. Note that torps are supposed to be getting harder to spot from the air, which is going to be a pretty hefty buff at all tiers. And I never said it wasn't important. However, their "effectively contributing" weapon has a reload speed 6x longer than the guns on a battleship, which you may notice are also perfectly capable of doing massive damage - or even one-shotting people, from significantly further away. Lord Koth fucked around with this message at 22:07 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
My best CV game so far and despite sinking 4 BB with 35 torps and 7 bombs we almost lost.   
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Crash74 posted:I don't understand all the It's pretty obvious why a lead indicator is more important in this game than tanks. First, the maps are wide open because this is the drat ocean. We don't have conveniently placed rocks and bushes to cover our advances across half the map. Second, shell travel times are comparatively slower than in WoT. It is often more difficult to lead targets at longer ranges as a result of this. Third, armor isn't going to deflect shots very often like it does in tanks, especially at long range where a lead indicator helps most. You don't need to hit very specific parts of a target to deal any damage. Fourth, when your primary defense to gradually change course and speed, ithelps quite a bit to have a lead indicator to let you know generally where to shoot! Fifth, if you are bothering to zoom out and look around during a fight to see what is going on around you, it's pretty nice to have a rough lead indicator to get you immediately back on target when you go back to shooting.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 22:14
|
|
about this mod. Compared to all the cheatery bullshit that wargaming tolerates in tanks a simple aim lead indicator getting all the hate is really weird to me. The way I see it is if you don't use this stuff you are giving shitlords a leg up on you, if for the simple fact you don't realise how to counter it properly. The aim indicator is fairly inaccurate and easy to counter, you just need to not be a total dipship and change course and speed when facing someone.
|
Warbadger posted:It's pretty obvious why a lead indicator is more important in this game than tanks. Aiming is literally the only skill required to play this game. Having a mod do that for you is just plain loving lazy and shows how terrible a person is at this game. E: For those of you who say evading is also a skill, I'm sorry. no its not. Any idiot CAN turn, slow down and speed up. Its not because most idiots don't, that it makes it a skill. Lead indicators makes it so that even by slowing down and zig zagging, someone can still have a pretty good idea of where to shoot, almost defeating the purpose of your actions. EE: Okay, maybe evading can be considered a skill. Maybe they should make a mod that tells you when and where to turn to avoid torpedoes. Dalael fucked around with this message at 22:28 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:That was more due to the discrepancy in planes than the carriers or tactics. They basically did nothing in 1943 as they were rebuilding their air wings, and by the time 1944 rolled around the planes were mostly obsolescent anyways. The people in charge basically did not give a poo poo about naval aviation, which meant it was low-priority both in terms up technological upgrades and production. Zeroes, which were being used at the beginning of the war, were still the main fighter at the end of the war - if slightly upgraded. They were good at the beginning; they were hopelessly outclassed by 1944. So trying to tie this to tactics when one side had a massive edge both numerically and technologically is rather silly. I was never trying to compare tactics. That would be silly because there are a shitload of factors to the comparison that including training, leadership, equipment, tactics, and a bunch of other nebulous things. This was an overall comparison of effectiveness w/r/t sinking ships in light of the developer decision in this game to make Japanese carrier planes comparatively better at sinking ships. This is why it's useful to look at the overall results (see: ships sunk) where all of those factors can be taken into account and note that it's a bit ironic to make the side that sunk very little IRL the best at sinking things. Noting that Japanese carrier aviation was using comparatively lovely equipment and had comparatively poor training practices leading to a death-spiral of pilot competency is not a point against what I was saying. As for the destroyers, despite those disadvantages torpedoes can effectively contribute so it a moot point what their reload time or range are. They aren't battleships and game balance would be hosed sideways if they could deal damage like battleships at long range. Going from hilariously powerful in lower tiers to slightly underpowered (at killing things - still great at capping) in upper tiers doesn't exactly land destroyers in a bad spot. Dalael posted:Aiming is literally the only skill required to play this game. Having a mod do that for you is just plain loving lazy and shows how terrible a person is at this game. If it wasn't clear, that was my point. Due to the reasons I listed a lead indicator in this game is absurdly powerful and a huge advantage even if it isn't pinpoint accurate. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 22:36 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Aiming is literally the only skill required to play this game. Having a mod do that for you is just plain loving lazy and shows how terrible a person is at this game. Aiming is the only skill required to play? Is that the reason you whiffed all those shots in your Nagato? Serious though, even if i get the lead right by staggering shots and poo poo I still don't get better than 20% accuracy per match. Once XVM rolls in and introduces server side crosshairs and other stupid bullshit, people will be wishing that a lead indicator was all they had to worry about.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
orange juche posted:Aiming is the only skill required to play? Is that the reason you whiffed all those shots in your Nagato? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by whiffed, but considering my poor performance when we played together the other day, I will assume you mean how much I sucked with my nagato. I'm actually a great example of what I meant. I kept missing guys who were going in straight line, and I displayed a complete lack of skills. What I did do however, was slow down my speed and try to zigzag and it did not help me much. It did help avoid some shots, but most landed on me anyway. I feel like, and I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong, evading is good against torpedoes but not that great against turret ships. Evading may help out against a BB that has a 30 second reload, but it doesn't do much versus a cruiser that has a 6 to 8 second reload and can machine gun you to death. There are some people who are either extremely good at leading shots, or are using the mod. If they do it all by skill alone, then good on them. They piss me off on the basis that I wish I could do the same, but at least its fair. But when a player like me (who aim about as well as an Imperial Stormtrooper) can suddenly reliably hit you because of a mod, i find that its unfair to people who actually work at improving themselves and getting better. Dalael fucked around with this message at 00:01 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:As for the destroyers, despite those disadvantages torpedoes can effectively contribute so it a moot point what their reload time or range are. They aren't battleships and game balance would be hosed sideways if they could deal damage like battleships at long range. Going from hilariously powerful in lower tiers to slightly underpowered (at killing things - still great at capping) in upper tiers doesn't exactly land destroyers in a bad spot. Minekaze is not the strongest tier 5. It's fairly strong, but its strength gets exaggerated because the two ships following it are irredeemable garbage. edit re. aim assist:  Aiming is very random at long range, and pretty easy at <10 km, anyway. It doesn't really help against ships that bother evading either. If the game's really that simplistic that a bad player with aim assist is indistinguishable from a good player without, I'd rather just call it a bad game and move on. I don't see any reason to care whether the player that killed you did so because they were ~~A Boats Unicum~~ or because they had aim assist, it's not like aim assist lets you fire 30 rounds per minute. James Garfield fucked around with this message at 00:17 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:A high tier torpedo hit on a battleship generally does less damage than a single citadel hit from a battleship. Except the battleship fires >3 times more, is much less dodgeable, does damage even when it doesn't citadel hit, doesn't instantly die when it makes a mistake, the list goes on. And the destroyer is much smaller, faster, can maneuver and dodge much better, has smoke to make it and its buddies invisible, and torps that are still pretty drat good at short range. That seems to be enough or at least close to enough to make it worthwhile. If it were a DPS monster like the BBs it would have to give up a lot to remain balanced. DDs go from absurdly powerful in Tier 5 and under where they have amazing damage potential, to balanced in mid-tiers, to slightly underpowered in the highest tiers.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
So, um, I didn't know there's two different versions of the Ocean map. Imagine my suprise and glee when I took the Kongo out today for laughs and ended up on a smaller Ocean map that spawns both teams close enough together that you can start opening fire right at the start of the match. So there I am in a Kongo, as top tier and the only BBs in the enemy team are two Myogis and a Kawachi. I forgot screenshotting it, but needless to say, it became a wee bit of a massacre as I just steamed down a flank laughing maniacally while murdering half the enemy team.  An Aurora driver actually started bitching up a shitstorm after I double-citadelled him with a broadside that just wiped him out from full health. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:And the destroyer is much smaller, faster, can maneuver and dodge much better, has smoke to make it and its buddies invisible, and torps that are still pretty drat good at short range. That seems to be enough or at least close to enough to make it worthwhile. If it were a DPS monster like the BBs it would have to give up a lot to remain balanced. DDs go from absurdly powerful in Tier 5 and under where they have amazing damage potential, to balanced in mid-tiers, to slightly underpowered in the highest tiers. Destroyers aren't absurdly powerful in low tier games. People are just bad shots and don't know how to respond to torpedoes, even the slower ones that are in the lower tiers. Destroyers can also actually pen some of their targets with AP at this level, and their torpedoes reload fast enough that they remain a threat to slow, nearby targets. They still die incredibly fast to anyone pointing their guns at them, they just have the opportunity to land torpedo hits, because they're getting shot at below 7-8KM, a decent range for them to actually think about maneuvering for a torpedo run. Mid tiers they get crucified by cruisers, and battleships start getting a lot of health. The Kongo is pretty fast, too, making it much harder to torpedo than the rest. The IJN destroyers also suffer from their increasing reload times, coupled with lackluster torpedo speed and awful guns, while the US destroyers can keep up by getting fast firing guns and relatively quick torpedoes. High tier, well, IJN destroyers do get the Long Lance with the Kagero and Shimakaze, but they'll need 6+ torpedo hits (the Kagero has 2 Quad tubes, the Shimakaze does more damage and has 3 quintuple tubes) to bring a battleship down. Even the Essex requires more than 3 torpedoes to be brought down, unless you get lucky with the damage. The US destroyers continue to pump out damage, but that damage can only pen other DDs. They're relegated to shooting HE at Cruisers/BBs, dying in a single salvo, and occasionally ambushing people with their own torpedoes. Of course, then there are the BB secondaries... DDs go from relatively balanced to one-trick ponies. They don't need cruisers gaining anti-torpedo weaponry and the possibility of limited ammo to further pigeon-hole them. I already spend the vast majority of my Kagero matches scouting and running away from anything that isn't another IJN DD.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
The reason cruisers are gaining anti-torpedo poo poo is because, whatever your personal experience, destroyers have been performing pretty drat well. There are a lot of reasons destroyers are strong as hell in lower tiers, one of them is the shorter range and less numerous guns, the early cruisers/BBs not being especially nimble, the lack of threatening secondaries, and very few ships being armored against torps or having HP pools deep enough to absorb a few torps. I don't even know where to begin if you can't dominate with DDs inside tiers 3-4 right now.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:The US destroyers continue to pump out damage, but that damage can only pen other DDs. They're relegated to shooting HE at Cruisers/BBs, dying in a single salvo, and occasionally ambushing people with their own torpedoes. Of course, then there are the BB secondaries... All that being said, the combination of updated armour model and limited shells makes me all  about the future prospects of DDs.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:All that being said, the combination of updated armour model and limited shells makes me all 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
Warbadger posted:The reason cruisers are gaining anti-torpedo poo poo is because, whatever your personal experience, destroyers have been performing pretty drat well. There are a lot of reasons destroyers are strong as hell in lower tiers, one of them is the shorter range and less numerous guns, the early cruisers/BBs not being especially nimble, the lack of threatening secondaries, and very few ships being armored against torps or having HP pools deep enough to absorb a few torps. I don't even know where to begin if you can't dominate with DDs inside tiers 3-4 right now. Did they post any numbers about DDs dominating lower tier games?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:57
|
|