|
grrarg posted:Haha, what did you do to make that guy so mad? Well I did torpedo him, but probably what got him going was how I dodged most of his shots when closing the distance. It was Ocean, he was in a Cleveland, and I was in a Nicholas. I probably should have died, but I was going straight in perpendicular to his course. I only had to make small course corrections when he fired to dodge his salvos. He only started to hit me when I turned to bring my torpedoes to bear. grrarg posted:I love it when people forget IJN cruisers have torpedoes. I've done that once when I was the one in the IJN cruiser. 
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
The Izumi and Yamato should have decent range out of their 6 inch secondary turrets, like maybe a base of 7km and a lower base for their 127mm DP guns. They're little different from the Cleveland's or that IJN cruiser's six inchers. Also, I played one match last night and it was in my Des Moines and holy poo poo is that ship amazing. It simply murders destroyers and will even put a real hurting on BB's. One pubbie in a Colorado made the mistake of stopping shooting at me to focus on a teammate after he got me down to 1/4 health with one salvo. I ended up with the kill. Also, for secondary chat, I think US secondaries on mid-tier battleships are noticeable weaker than their IJN counterparts, especially in fully upgraded versions that sacrifice secondary batteries for AA. The Colorado's secondaries were barely scratching me. I think my secondaries were doing more damage. Moral_Hazard fucked around with this message at 15:15 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
I put the range and accuracy secondariness upgrade on my Fuso and it seemed to make a noticeable difference to how well it did against DD's close in. It's purely anecdotal but it seems worthwhile to me.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
So it seems word is out about the HE bug. HE all day every day. I took my Fuso out for a few matches and I was on fire from the first hit till the end of the match.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
People start matches by saying "I hope you all like fires.." in all chat. You tell me if the word is out?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Does the bug occur when you have pyromania at all or is it just if you retrained to it?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Does the bug occur when you have pyromania at all or is it just if you retrained to it? My understanding from what I've read (I actually haven't played since this started) is that you take a commander that has Pyromania, and put him in 'retraining', and as long as he is retraining the bug is in effect, as for some reason instead of halving the skill effect while retraining, it's doubling it (or more, who knows).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
The Locator posted:My understanding from what I've read (I actually haven't played since this started) is that you take a commander that has Pyromania, and put him in 'retraining', and as long as he is retraining the bug is in effect, as for some reason instead of halving the skill effect while retraining, it's doubling it (or more, who knows). The scary thing about this is I have not even tried it, yet in my last match in my Mogami I scored 68 hits and 22 Fire's without Pyromania.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Some people have unrealistic expecations of destroyers. Am I supposed to go charging straight towards the enemy ships right at the start of the match? God forbid I hide behind an island. I guess I have to learn some E-honor  NuckmasterJ posted:The scary thing about this is I have not even tried it, yet in my last match in my Mogami I scored 68 hits and 22 Fire's without Pyromania. Yeah, that's just "patch 3.1" 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
El Disco posted:Some people have unrealistic expecations of destroyers. Am I supposed to go charging straight towards the enemy ships right at the start of the match? I had one dude in a New York who I killed with a massive torpedo strike from my torpedo bombers. He never changed speed or course, just kept plowing forward as I positioned my bombers and had them make their runs. Afterwards he went absolutely berserk about how I was cheating and how there's no way to avoid bombers or torpedoes. Some people will flip out any time the game goes in a way that's not to their liking and that's really funny.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Apparently 0.3.1.2 just dropped, got a ~157mb update just now. http://worldofwarships.com/en/cbt/news/0312-update-notes/ I rummaged around inside the .patch file, the files for the Bismarck are present  . Also, a lot of game SWFs replaced by various mods got updated too, so expect mod breakage.Logged in, general help & chat channel hub bub says IJN torp bombers had the width of their torpedo spread upped by 50% or so  . Also all USA fighters were buffed to carry 15% more ammo.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Haha, what? As far as I can tell they already had a wider spread than US torpedo planes - along with having to drop them further back as far as I can tell* - so they made it even harder to hit with a decent spread? While at the same time making the random chance zone of being an unintended recipient of a torpedo larger? Honestly, at this point Wargaming should just take carriers out if all they're going to do is nerf them having any impact on the actual match due to whiners. *=This is from anecdotal experience with them when 3.1 dropped. I admittedly don't play carriers too much, but it certainly seemed like the IJN torpedoes were faster but had the same arming time, leading to me having to drop them from further away. I'll admit I could easily be wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
I'm still having a hard time understanding what the incentive is to buy a premium ship. Do they plan on greatly upping the free exp you earn with it? What good is the ship experience I earn with it if I just have to spend even more money to actually convert that exp to free exp to actually use it?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
jownzy posted:I'm still having a hard time understanding what the incentive is to buy a premium ship. Do they plan on greatly upping the free exp you earn with it? Commanders don't need any re-training to use them. So you can stick your BB commander into an Atlanta or Sims and train him up that way. The convertable XP is just a bonus. They also make more credits than other ships, so they're a good way to fund new purchases or operational costs of high-tier ships.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Polikarpov posted:Commanders don't need any re-training to use them. So you can stick your BB commander into an Atlanta or Sims and train him up that way. The convertable XP is just a bonus. They also make more credits than other ships, so they're a good way to fund new purchases or operational costs of high-tier ships. I see, so the fact that I presently have a Russian DD, makes this fact slightly more hidden. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
jownzy posted:I see, so the fact that I presently have a Russian DD, makes this fact slightly more hidden. Thanks. Until Russian ships get added, yep. The commander re-training (and fun credit making machine) is the main purpose of premiums in both this and Tanks (get 2 'first win' bonus xp fights on a single commander). Well, in Tanks some of them get pref match-making too, to maximize the fun/hilarity factor. Love me some KV-5.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Premium ships can train commanders for other ships. It's not as valuable as it could be since none of the skills are decisive (like sixth sense in tanks) but it's there. They also make bonus credits/xp, which is useful if tier 5s somehow don't make enough credits for you. Mostly you'd just buy it if you want to play that particular ship.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Haha, what? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo9AiJnIz7Y That's why. Behold the Sky Cancer
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Apparently the Taiho and that thing were too bananas.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
I just played my first game in a Langly, no experience.... took out 2 BB and 1 CV with my one squad of torp bombers... seemed pretty decent to me??? That video obviously shows me I don't think I'll be very interested in playing tier X BB.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Krogort posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo9AiJnIz7Y ...Yes, how dare a carrier be able to take out completely unescorted battleships, considering that's what one of their explicitly listed roles listed in the tactics section is.  You may also notice that the Tier 9 Iowa on that team STILL managed to score higher than the carrier - and got High Caliber to boot. Note that the green team played better overall too, and the Montana was already at half health before the carrier even started his attack runs. Also I'm fully aware you're being sarcastic, so no worries on that front.  Just also know there're plenty of people who actually do apparently feel that way.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:...Yes, how dare a carrier be able to take out completely unescorted battleships, considering that's what one of their explicitly listed roles listed in the tactics section is. This is a good reason until you realize you are talking about a wargaming game with pubbies.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Haha, what? Welcome to what happened to artillery in World of Tanks. Completely immobile tank, perfect aiming reticle and you still miss leading to ~a minute of reloading? Still needs nerfs. And you'll still see people bitching about it because of the one-off hits because they were sitting out in the open and generally being pubbies.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Krogort posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo9AiJnIz7Y Jesus christ. I watched him sink the montana and then closed the video. It isn't the crazy damage that made me close it. It was the guy playing carrier as badly as possible. Not grouping his wings, using the auto aim with torps (which shows how drat bad the montana player was). Not adjusting the speed for his auto pilot so was running away from the south enemy group at half speed when upping the speed would have been a very good idea. That single run could have been done with three or 4 torp squads. And then the dive bombers and the remaining torp squad could have been on top of the iowa harassing it before he completely his plane contingent.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Thank god that wasn't just me thinking that this guy was super bad. You should have watched the second ship he tried to sink. Jesus christ he's just using sheer weight of numbers to bring them down. If he had properly grouped and co-ordinated his torp runs he could have dropped him in a fraction of the 6+ minutes it took. edit: I'm kinda liking the japanese cruisers so far. i had heard they weren't great so I didn't bother but it took me one match to get through the Tenryu and the Kuma is pretty solid so far. After playing both DD lines and the american cruisers, Jap cruisers feel like some weird cruiser/DD hybrid. RosaParksOfDip fucked around with this message at 22:59 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
He also didn't notice the Yamato survived by popping its repair, didn't know where the Des Moines was right after the Yamato went down despite it being on minimap, didn't notice the Yamato until it shot him, and was way too interested in the other carrier for no good reason
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
RosaParksOfDip posted:Welcome to what happened to artillery in World of Tanks. Completely immobile tank, perfect aiming reticle and you still miss leading to ~a minute of reloading? Still needs nerfs. And you'll still see people bitching about it because of the one-off hits because they were sitting out in the open and generally being pubbies. Even that's selling carriers short. Almost none of the things that were wrong with artillery are true for carriers: they don't have remarkably high alpha damage, hitting isn't random (torpedo bombers aren't random at all; dive bombers are very random but do no damage), carriers aren't immune from retaliation, and so on. Really the only thing they have in common is being the longest ranged class, which in itself is only a problem for ehonor nerds. Pubbies are just livid at the idea that something other than a battleship might sink their battleship. Judging by the pubbies in this game it's probably something to do with kancolle.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Even that's selling carriers short. Almost none of the things that were wrong with artillery are true for carriers: they don't have remarkably high alpha damage, hitting isn't random (torpedo bombers aren't random at all; dive bombers are very random but do no damage), carriers aren't immune from retaliation, and so on. Really the only thing they have in common is being the longest ranged class, which in itself is only a problem for ehonor nerds. While kancolle might be behind several annoyances in this game, I'm fairly certain it has nothing to do with this one. No, this is just idiots that have no idea how combined arms works - or the capability of reading even the most basic blurbs put in front of their faces. I especially like all the posts that run along the lines of "Well I only play battleships, but it's not fair that these other classes I have no understanding of how they play or the skill involved are sinking me. I mean, I'm a BATTLESHIP!!!" Or do you not remember all the whining about how OP destroyers are too? Of course, that implies that they even know how to effectively play even battleships. Like I went head-to-head with a Colorado with my Nagato and, not only was I outshooting him to begin with, I also deliberately closed to secondary range ASAP, at which point they were tearing chunks out of his bar and setting fires. In fact, until I switched to HE for the last salvo to ensure the kill, I was shooting AP from my main guns the entire slugging match. This didn't stop my secondaries from setting multiple fires, which he then accused me of lying about - I clearly had to be shooting HE the entire time, because how else could he whine about fires? Tactics chat: DON'T STAY WITHIN SECONDARY RANGE OF A NAGATO, THEY WILL EAT YOU ALIVE.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
as a licensed anime virgin i can assure you that kantai the collection of misogynist personifications of fascist vessels of war is not affecting players preferences and idealizations of proper honorable gun duels in world of warships poor taiho she my waifu and wargaming wont give her a break. sasuga her luck. sasuga wargaming.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
There is no reason to brag about killing a Colorado it's dog poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Hi. Sorry if it's been asked before but are they planning to wipe progress/experience still? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Unexpected posted:Hi. Sorry if it's been asked before but are they planning to wipe progress/experience still? They do when open beta starts. Everything gets reset, that includes tokens and stuff. So, imho, if you want to minmax poo poo and get the best stuff this is the way to go, on the current patch: US Cruisers, IJN Battleships and Destroyers. And Atlanta. If only the Iowa and Montana wouldn't be so sexy 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
I don't exclusively play battleship but doing less damage to a cruiser with a salvo from a battleship than he does to you when both hit is a bit hosed.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Why not American DDs? Is it the horribly short range torps or is there another reason higher up the tree?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I don't exclusively play battleship but doing less damage to a cruiser with a salvo from a battleship than he does to you when both hit is a bit hosed. Stop shooting AP at superstructures. e: While the horrible range gets a bit better later, IJN torps are still straight up better.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Or do you not remember all the whining about how OP destroyers are too? Oh certainly. They'll whine about destroyers as long as torpedoes exist. Even if destroyer torpedoes did less damage than their guns I am absolutely certain pubbies would whine about OP torpedoes. And the destroyer whining is even funnier because it's so painfully obvious that destroyers are harder to play than battleships. My favorite official forum posting is a close contest between that Austro-Hungarian nationalist and the people who actually believe that battleships have been useful since 1942 not to suggest that they were useful before 1942 either. I think the majority of boats players want the worst tier 3 battleship to be stronger than the best tier 10 ships of other classes.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
It's not so much battleships were completly useless, but much like tanks in WW2 - there was probably a lot less Battleship on Battleship fighting going on than Battleships as pure support ships. And once planes came into play the age of the steel dreadnaughts was over anyway  e: I mean, why would you bring a huge asset like a battleship into a battle in which it can be destroyed with a single hit?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:It's not so much battleships were completly useless, but much like tanks in WW2 - there was probably a lot less Battleship on Battleship fighting going on than Battleships as pure support ships. It only happened twice in the entire Pacific theatre, once in late '42 at Guadalcanal when the Washington sank the Kirishima after South Dakota crippled herself, and once at Surigao in '44 when the old American battle line annihilated Yamashiro
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Too be fair, they HAVE been useful after 1942; just as artillery platforms to support troops in coastal areas and later additionally carrying cruise missile batteries. In fact, that the Marines now lack any real way of receiving naval gunfire support has been a concern of theirs. That's probably not what said person means though when claiming battleships are useful.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
NTRabbit posted:It only happened twice in the entire Pacific theatre, once in late '42 at Guadalcanal when the Washington sank the Kirishima after South Dakota crippled herself, and once at Surigao in '44 when the old American battle line annihilated Yamashiro Well there you go. To be fair, you should probably mention the Panzerschiff Deutschland which was a pocketbattleship, that got obliterated by a light and heavy cruiser and then the captain decided to blow the ship up, and him with it? Lord Koth posted:Too be fair, they HAVE been useful after 1942; just as artillery platforms to support troops in coastal areas and later additionally carrying cruise missile batteries. In fact, that the Marines now lack any real way of receiving naval gunfire support has been a concern of theirs. That's probably not what said person means though when claiming battleships are useful. True, but you also have to keep in mind that deploying a battlegroup with a battleship is a huge logistic nighmare. You need escorts that protect the ship itself, you need supplies, and more likely than not a carrier-group to protect the actual battlegroup against airborne attacks. It's not just "Lets put ship here to fire on land." And in the end they are nothing but large, expensive fire support platforms. e: The americans had their reason to cancel the construction of the Montana in favour of more carriers. Michaellaneous fucked around with this message at 00:52 on May 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 00:48
|
|