|
Jack_tripper posted:wowp is inferior to running around the backyard with your arms stretched out making airplane noises
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
War Thunder on the other hand does a great job in both SIM and Arcade style plane shootiness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
My only concern with making Battleships too good is that in Navyfield they were universally top tier and running a CA in that game outside Blitzkrieg was rough since those BBs not only had range but also accuracy as well. Even Carriers weren't a problem for them since you could out heal airstrikes. I get that WoWS isn't Navyfield but with the tier system they need to strive to make Destroyers, cruisers, Battleships and Carriers of a given tier equally viable if possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
Would removing the fire mechanic help? It seems like HE does enough damage anyway because a 152mm shell can cause spalling damage to a 350mm belt. I think it might be the fire on top of HE's ability to seemingly damage everything that pushes it over the top. Maybe make it incredibly rare or have it be caused only by specific parts of the ship being hit, with precise hitboxes. Make the cruisers earn their fire damage. Or maybe it's fine. What isn't fine is the MM not taking the power of carriers seriously and thinking it's ok to give one side no carrier while the other side has a tier 7. It feels like the game is only balanced for clan play where people will actually get in a formation where AA works well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
But sometimes the carrier you get is terrible, and a waste of slot. Had a game on the open sea map where we had the lone carrier. Someone on the team said we got a favorable match-up, as long as the squadron keep away from the enemy's 3 clevelands. First thing our carrier did was send his squadrons one by one into the 3 clevelands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
I agree. I really wish carriers had a game mode that favored them. So you could do Midway type battles on larger maps. Make the other game modes stricter about matching the number and tier of carriers, make the Midway mode more liberal about it. So you could have a longer queue time but a much better chance of having 0/0 1/1 or 2/2 carriers of equal tier, or a faster mode where you might be outmatched but you'll get more games in as a tradeoff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:War Thunder on the other hand does a great job in both SIM and Arcade style plane shootiness. Now all we need is Warthunderships so I can never log into my Wargaming account again. I feel so dirty just being this close to WoT 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Would removing the fire mechanic help? It seems like HE does enough damage anyway because a 152mm shell can cause spalling damage to a 350mm belt. I think it might be the fire on top of HE's ability to seemingly damage everything that pushes it over the top. Maybe make it incredibly rare or have it be caused only by specific parts of the ship being hit, with precise hitboxes. Make the cruisers earn their fire damage. The critical system as a whole is in a pretty weird spot right now. They're both incredibly common as well as usually rather long lasting. I've lost count of the times in a destroyer where I'd get my engines destroyed, popped the repair, and have them immediately destroyed again in the very next salvo. I think it'd be better if they either had drastically reduced durations (20-30 seconds) so they're not completely debilitating at the current frequency, or if they instead made them much rarer and made the repair-tool a limited-use consumable (in which case the engine-damage crit should probably still allow for slow movement). Well, anyways, have some pubbies.txt. This was right after I killed an enemy New York with some short-range citadel hits while he kept bombarding me with HE the whole time. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Well, anyways, have some pubbies.txt. This was right after I killed an enemy New York with some short-range citadel hits while he kept bombarding me with HE the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
NuckmasterJ posted:Now all we need is Warthunderships so I can never log into my Wargaming account again. I feel so dirty just being this close to WoT Yeah I haven't logged into WoT since WT-Tanks became a thing. Well, I'm lying. I logged in a few weeks ago "played" a round or two and logged out in disgust. Would rather play WT-Tanks in arcade mode. That being said, I'm surprised how much fun WoS is and WT-Ships would own because you know they'd actually add in submarines 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Well, anyways, have some pubbies.txt. This was right after I killed an enemy New York with some short-range citadel hits while he kept bombarding me with HE the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Krogort posted:He damaged you pretty bad though, I suppose those fire ate most of your HP bar. That wasn't just his doing. Before that I'd been eating shells from another Wyoming and some cruisers for a while. When we started going at it directly he was at about ~70% while I was at ~50%, with me basically dealing twice as much damage in the same time frame due to AP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
So...I played this game for 2 days before realizing that the default mode is against bots. Well, now I know why it seems like I was doing so well so quickly. Playing against actual people is very different.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
I use HE in my myogi because I got sick of my single shell landing per salvo kept doing only 1k damage because I don't really get to choose where my shells land. I switch to AP under 10km though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Welp, Mutsuki is still a downgrade over Minekaze. But she's also still pretty fun whenever you can go full  into the enemy backfield, tracking down carriers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
I was persuaded to drop a few quid for a Murmansk. drat this thing is great! I just took it for it's very first game and harvested not only pubbie tears 'russian poo poo', 'pay to win scum' etc but this win I wonder how much more it would have been without the South Carolina guy trundling blithely into some torps of mine that were about to range out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Is it just me or does the conversion cost for free xp seem a bit steep? I have 12,500 xp on premium ships I wanted to convert and its going to cost 500 Russian bux? Why are premium ships even getting ship XP to begin with. The experience should automatically go into Free Xp to help get past poo poo ships seeing as a premium ship has no use for xp. Slightly annoyed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:Yeah I haven't logged into WoT since WT-Tanks became a thing. Well, I'm lying. I logged in a few weeks ago "played" a round or two and logged out in disgust. Would rather play WT-Tanks in arcade mode. Well don't hold your breath, because last I heard they still haven't found out a good way to do realistic and sim mode in ships without it resulting in boring hour-long matches. But yeah eventually I'll be harvesting tears when I kamikaze someone's destroyer with my burning Avenger.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
El Disco posted:Well don't hold your breath, because last I heard they still haven't found out a good way to do realistic and sim mode in ships without it resulting in boring hour-long matches. But yeah eventually I'll be harvesting tears when I kamikaze someone's destroyer with my burning Avenger. Thats a poor excuse for not getting ships out to us. I'm sure everyone can live with Arcade ship on Ship action with a little plane stuff mixed in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
The idea of introducing submarines into a game where the only ships for them to hunt are warships is just plain dumb. That's not what submarines were for. You may as well wish that they would put armed trawlers in. Yeah you get to gimmick about, but even a destroyer will kill you without noticing because you're poo poo in that environment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Gapey Joe Stalin posted:The idea of introducing submarines into a game where the only ships for them to hunt are warships is just plain dumb. That's not what submarines were for. You may as well wish that they would put armed trawlers in. Yeah you get to gimmick about, but even a destroyer will kill you without noticing because you're poo poo in that environment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Gapey Joe Stalin posted:The idea of introducing submarines into a game where the only ships for them to hunt are warships is just plain dumb. That's not what submarines were for. You may as well wish that they would put armed trawlers in. Yeah you get to gimmick about, but even a destroyer will kill you without noticing because you're poo poo in that environment. War Thunder usually has a whole bunch of AI-controlled units on the map that people can destroy to get victory points. In that context I could see subs having a similar role to bombers and ground attackers, trying to sneak by the main enemy force to get at a bunch of transports for sweet points.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
I can't check right now on my phone, but I'm 99% sure that Gaijin have also said no to submarines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
I keep getting my poo poo absolutely wrecked by torpedo planes, they just drop 'em so drat close.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Fresh Shesh Besh posted:I keep getting my poo poo absolutely wrecked by torpedo planes, they just drop 'em so drat close. This is why a lot of us would like to see a 1 to 1.5 KM arming distance for plane dropped torps (or even all torps). I've had someone drop torps in all cardinal directions to my ship in about 4 seconds. There's nothing that I could do to avoid getting instagibbed
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
I think air dropped torpedoes should have only a 70% effectiveness rate. Add the possibility of duds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:This is why a lot of us would like to see a 1 to 1.5 KM arming distance for plane dropped torps (or even all torps). I could see the 1km arming distance for plane-dropped torps, but i've pulled off several kills in a DD where the enemy ship allowed me to get to the point of minimum arming distance, way closer than they should have allowed me to get, and they rightfully wound up on the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
El Disco posted:I can't check right now on my phone, but I'm 99% sure that Gaijin have also said no to submarines. They have, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I think air dropped torpedoes should have only a 70% effectiveness rate. Add the possibility of duds. Remove planes from game. Give CVs 85% ramming damage reduction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
orange juche posted:I could see the 1km arming distance for plane-dropped torps, but i've pulled off several kills in a DD where the enemy ship allowed me to get to the point of minimum arming distance, way closer than they should have allowed me to get, and they rightfully wound up on the bottom. I'd be perfectly ok with them increasing the minimum range on ship launched torps, launches at that range anyways are virtually guaranteed against all but DDs anyways. So long as it meant an increase on plane dropped torps. Have I mentioned I hate CVs? Enough to willingly take a nerf to DDs just to see them nerfed as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:Remove planes from game. Well, historically air dropped torps had a noticeable failure rate. I think ship-launched ones should retain 100% effectiveness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:Remove planes from game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Well, historically air dropped torps had a noticeable failure rate. I think ship-launched ones should retain 100% effectiveness. Pretty much all WW1/2 torpedos were one colour of dogshit or another. Which is why subs preferred to use the deck guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Weren't Japan's torpedoes one of its actually genuinely excellent weapons except for the part where the oxygen fueled propulsion system made them prone to blowing up if they took any sort of hit (taking the ship carrying them with it)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Gapey Joe Stalin posted:Pretty much all WW1/2 torpedos were one colour of dogshit or another. Which is why subs preferred to use the deck guns. Only American subs preferred to use deck guns (and even then, by 1944 when they started comprehensively destroying Japan's commercial shipping they had torpedoes that could actually explode when you wanted them to). American torpedoes were by far the worst in the war, the sheer size of the pacific ocean meant very little operational area was covered by land based aircraft, attrition rates among Japanese escort rates were astonishing and Japanese ASW capabilities were the worst of all the naval belligerents in the war and most especially the Japanese merchant marine never adopted convoys as a comprehensive strategy. German subs very much did not prefer to use deck guns atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jul 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
I kind of think that US DDs are lacking a niche somewhat. Japanese DDs have enough range on their torpedoes to pop smoke and shower an area in death from safety, while US DDs have to get right in close to use theirs, which limits their utility quite a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Gort posted:I kind of think that US DDs are lacking a niche somewhat. Japanese DDs have enough range on their torpedoes to pop smoke and shower an area in death from safety, while US DDs have to get right in close to use theirs, which limits their utility quite a lot. They used to have a niche, and then they nerfed small HE fires % and damage when 4.0 happened, due to people whining about US DDs keeping them on fire and being able to burn down their battleship/carrier/whatever. Now US DDs are kinda just unflavorful garbage. They're good for hunting other DDs but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Gort posted:I kind of think that US DDs are lacking a niche somewhat. Japanese DDs have enough range on their torpedoes to pop smoke and shower an area in death from safety, while US DDs have to get right in close to use theirs, which limits their utility quite a lot. I've found the Clemson works well if you ambush people around islands and things, while killing other DDs with the double guns. It can also outgun a Tenryu in a straight boatfight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Weren't Japan's torpedoes one of its actually genuinely excellent weapons except for the part where the oxygen fueled propulsion system made them prone to blowing up if they took any sort of hit (taking the ship carrying them with it)? I think because of the victory at Tsushima the Japanese thought they could do a lot of damage to US fleets in night time torpedo attacks. The big difference was that 40 years had passed and technology followed. I wonder if the Japanese would have been so married to their night engagements if they knew what American radar capabilities were.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
If they nerfed air dropped torpedoes then they should buff dive bombers. It seems weird that I can get 4 torpedo hits and 7 bomb hits and yet the bomb hits and fire damage combined is still 25% of the torpedo damage. Id make bomber accuracy based on a logarithm that factors : -Base accuracy based on tier/nationality -Relative speed of target -Rate of turn of target in degrees -Concealment rating of target Rather than whatever voodoo they have it running now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:52
|
|