Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About Gnomus

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Gnomus

    Clan Battles with CVs

    Two key points underlined. It is not simply about "can carrier be dealt with", but how it affects battle in general. 1. Being forced to pick AA ships reduces usable pool of ships that can be picked. Being forced to pick AA ships reduces builds you can use on captain and upgrades. 2. Being forced to pick tactics against carrier means mostly that you have one or two blobs of ships. Say good buy to creative positioning and flanking. Say good buy to getting low health ships out of detection range and to safety for heals or shooting from behind island unseen. Say good buy to vanishing from spot and letting caps do the winning. People will generate ways to handle carriers, in one way or another. I'm sure people would find ways to cope if teams were allowed to take 7 BB's or if clan battles would be restricted to full DD lineups. It still doesn't mean it would be (as) fun (as previous clan battle without CV). Having carrier in clan battles blocks out a lot, and I mean A LOT, of possible tactics and setups. Whole vision game will be diminished.
  2. Gnomus

    Naval Battle imbalance

    It matters little who you are "fighting". You get 800 oil from preparations phase, then on "battle" phase you get 700 on win, 400 on draw and 300 on loss + 50 oil per 10 stars. Difference between win and loss is something like 1600 vs 1200 oil (for small clan that can get 20-29 stars). Once Naval battles go for longer time it most likely evens up as clans build up their ratings and are matched more evenly. Meanwhile 1600 vs 1200 is not something to fuss over, you still get plenty of free stuff. At least that is how I see it. I do not feel great need to push for a "win", because difference is not worth stressing over it.
  3. Gnomus

    Make Your Stand – Earn Exeter FREE!

    As others have pointed out, having "shoot down 30 planes" is stupid mission. Not only that you make you to get to battle with carrier, but even when you manage to get such battle you can't force planes to come near you. This alone is a bad design, but combining it to quite strict restriction on tiers (around half usable) on classes (half usable) and on top of that on nations (2 out of 7) is just going beyond normal bad design. Do damage, potential damage, make fires etc. missions at least can progress on every battle, but shoot down missions can go for long times with no possibility of doing anything. At that with restricted ships that might not fit to ships you would otherwise play. WG, please do not use this type of mission temp plate ever again.
  4. Gnomus

    Ranked battles rework - Stars retirement

    OP has good point, and I have been thinking about the same. I ask people to take a step back and for a moment forgot all about stars and saving stars. In basics Ranked Battles is a grind. For very good players it takes ~100 battles to get to R1, for goodish players it can be ~200 and then not so good can persist their way to R1 with 300-400 battles and worst don't have enough time to get to R1 (numbers are of the hat, so don't get stuck on them). Skill makes it faster, but people can advance just by playing a lot. Currently most frustrating thing in rankeds is set back of getting bad team (or just playing like a donkey, but of course "it's teams fault"). On average people need lot of battles to advance one star. Getting three or four bad matches in a row means you gotta play 10-20 battles just to get back where you were. Just by changing way of counting advancement would make a major effect on amount of frustration. Now winning team gets +1 star, best loser 0 star and losers get -1 star. WG could change it (with corresponding change in number of stars needed to advance) to winners getting +2 stars, best loser +1 star and losers getting 0 star. In such cases getting a bad team and losing would simply delay your advance, not kick you on the balls and force you back on track. It could even be winners getting +3 stars, best loser getting +2 stars and losers getting +1 star, and then getting bad team would only slow down your advancement. For ranked battles to work for WG it needs to take some time to finish and force people to play. They could just look at average number of battles it takes for fast players to get to R1, how many battles it takes for average players and what kind of dedication is not enough to reach R1 in needed time and then pick amount of stars and threshold of needed stars to match those amounts. Or they could just go base exp way as OP suggested. It would reward winning by giving more base exp. It would reward good play by giving more base exp if you did well even if on losing side. It would punish bad and passive play with less base exp even if team carries bad player to victory. It would take away whole "save the star" mentality because being top loser would no longer mean "I saved 5-10 battles on average" but just getting little more than second best loser. If "grind xx thousand base exp" sounds boring as missions/quest it can be hidden in "starts", like 0-400 base exp = 0 (to weed out AFK and bots, and only occasionally punishing unlucky real player) stars, 401-700 = 1 star, 701 -1000 = 2 stars etc. Such system would be grindy, but grindy in a way where you advance and get rewarded for good play by advancing faster. Current system is also grindy, but there bad luck can set you back a lot and that is what makes it so frustrating. TL:DR After all ranked battles are just about how many battles is needed for R1. By picking rewards and thresholds for advancement WG could maintain same amount of battles, but pack that grind in a much less frustrating format than current Ranked system.
  5. Gnomus

    Lost captain skills

    As others have already tried to explain, you have not lost 4 point skill. Skill is there and it is active (even if practically useless). What happened is that game is trying to tell you that manual secondaries on that particular ships might not be best possible choice. Even if it is "greyed out" it will give your secondaries (all 4x2 88mm guns with 4.5km range) better dispersion (-15%), but you need to pick targets manually. If you move that captain to some ships that benefits more from secondaries (for example Bismarck) skill is no loner "greyed out".
  6. Gnomus

    Clan Base 2.0: WG favoring BIG clans again

    Small clans do have adequate prices. I will mark things down for you in form bonus/price so you can see how much "better" big clans can be and what it cost. Commander experience: Minor/small clans: +6%/3k Medium clans: +8%/13k Large clans: +10%/33k Combat experience: Minor clans: +2%/3k Small clans: +3% 10,5k Medium clans: +4%/26,5k Large clans: +5%/56,5k Free experience: Minor clans: +10%/3k Small clans: +15% 10,5k Medium clans: +20%/26,5k Large clans: +25%/56,5k Price of ships: Minor clans: -10%/3,5k Small clans: -12% 9,5k Medium clans: -14%/19,5k Large clans: -15%/39,5k Service Cost: Minor clans: -5%/2,8k Small clans: -10% 14,8k Medium clans: -12%/34,8k Large clans: -15%/84,8k Coal: Minor/Small clans: +5%/4k Medium Clans: +7%/ 24k Large Clans: +10%/124k Steel: Medium clans: +5%/60k Large clans: +7%/150k Super large clans: +10%/270k Small clans can get around half the bonuses for very cheap price. You need large player base if you are going for something like -3% extra service cost with 50k oil, and I'm not sure any large clan is touching that either. With coal small clans doesn't get punished. Having +5% with 4k while +7% cost 24k (doable for medium clans) and +10% is whopping 124k, so again not sure how many "large clan" is going to pay 100k oil for that extra 3%. Steel is little different, as first tier costs 60k (and 2nd and 3rd tier are almost untouchable to most clans, even the biggest). But then steel is resource only for competitive players (clan battles or ranked) and as others have pointed out there few percent is not going to mean much. As I see it small clans are getting very good deal with base 2.0. Of course they can't get everything same as big clans, but they can get most with much smaller work.
  7. Gnomus

    New Arms Race Mode

    This seems fine addition to the game. Play meta is different, as you you can't count anymore on some "certainties" about camo or DD's not repairing hit points etc. I haven't played enough to say if this changes balance (too much), but at least it changes game style. If some radar CA or low camo BB have managed to get several camo buffs it can give you bad surprises. What WG messed up is that Arms Race is not progressing some missions. Now I need to decide if I want to progress TX special upgrade missions or play this new battle mode. If there is no good reason to exclude mode from missions then new modes should be added to old missions.
  8. Gnomus

    Update 0.7.9 - General Feedback

    Do you mean your arsenal can't handle currencies of two events? Like others have pointed out, keeping tokens and buy option open for a week or until one more patch would alleviate all problems. There is no need to keep old currencies for long, but in current way you can lose (or rather changed to credits with bad ratio) all your tokens if you miss the last day for any reason. Like being forced to work overtime, having your kid get sick and spend night in hospital, having car broke down etc. Some times you plan to get permanent camo (200 tokens), but end up at 195 tokens before last evening and plan to get last missing on tokens on the last evening, but then real life interfere and you miss that day. Instead of getting Dasha and punch of flags with 195 tokens you end up with credits and all hard work wasted. Just few days grace period on spending tokens would cover most unexpected situations. For that you don't need to fill arsenal with tons of old tokens, just current tokens and tokens of last event. That should not be impossible task, compared to having unhappy customers and customer support handling tokens manually.
  9. Gnomus

    British Destroyers

    This is (and already was on earlier similar missions) one of WG's bad jokes. Some get lucky and get T8 very fast others can even spend money on boxes and never get anything. As Vinyl pointed out, it is double stupid because they have blocked missions behind getting T7-8 DD. It is not so bad, if missions stay open after DD branch has been added and anyone can finish them, but if missions become unavailable after a week then it is very bad design. I have no idea why WG can't just give us ordinary missions to obtain T5-8 ships as they have done earlier. Then it would be up to working your way up, not getting (un)lucky.
  10. Gnomus

    Suggestions thread

    First: Advance speed in WoWS is much higher than in WoT. You get both exp and credits faster than in WoT, so you need less battles to advance in tech tree. Add flags and camoes and speed of advancement is pretty high. Grind in WoT is much longer and harder in comparison. Last: I hope WG will not make battles any faster. I like slow battles where anticipating enemy movements and making long term tactical decisions are much more important than fast reflexes and good hand eye coordination. I liked WoT much more when it was not so fast paced and lethal as it is today. I understand that different people like different things, and I do not expect you to share my preferences. I just wanted to point out that some of us do like and enjoy longer and slower battles and prefer WoWS to WoT because of that.
  11. Gnomus

    Demolition Expert underpower

    Hello @Xanta99 Thanks for calculations. There is still one major flaw. Having bigger fire change does not directly lead to more damage, at least not in linear way. Ship that is only shortly exposed and can either go behind cover or lose spot can use repair and remove fire. -> Not much damage done. Ship that is already burning will not get another burn (on same area) no matter how big your fire change is. -> Once ships is burning high burn change gives nothing extra. Fire damage can be repaired 100% (if given time) so it might give big numbers but do not necessary convert to performance in battle. Especially on high tiers where even cruisers have heals. Direct extra damage from increased RoF gives more reliable damage. Of course there is possible problems with damage saturation and penetration, but those doesn't generally seem to be the problem (at least not with IFHE). In addition direct damage can't be fully healed and being able to do more damage faster might mean enemy ship not escaping to heal or not being able to damage you while slowly burning down. On ships with already high fire change DE doesn't give much. Low fire change ships benefit more, but even there effective damage increase is much less than increase of fire change. TL:DR: 33% more fires doesn't mean 33% more (effective) damage when you include repair parties, ships already on fire and heals. Benefit from DE is much less than 33%.
  12. Gnomus

    GO NAVY! Event

    Whole reward system was done badly. Instead of promoting thigh competition and going to help weaker team it just encourages to jump to winning team. Original reason to pick a one or the other side: - You like one teams permanent camo better. - You fancy Dash or Aliena enough to go for her team. - You like descrition of one team better than the other. With one team clearly more powerful than the other there is a big reason to stay on that team, or jump to it if you had picked the wrong team. Loyalty token business means that those aiming for permanent camoes has to stay in team, or change early and then stay on the team. Why go for the weaker side? There simply is no reason. You get extra box for changing side, but lose loyalty, and you miss the daily winning box. Bonus points for the team are just cosmetic and doesn't really help as FidelisRaven explained earlier: And reason it is just cosmetics lies here: Mainly: This multiplier only affects the points of the team - not the points you earned as an individual player! Had WG made that bonus influence players individual points there would be reason to change a team. Instead of "pick winning team for extra box" it would be down to thinking if grinding 750 points for 3 box and win box or perhaps change side to get some +25/50% bonus and get 4 boxes with 625/1000 points and possibly win box if your team got lucky. There should be some reason to change the team, _for the individual player_. Now there is none. Even with above change there still would be issue of loyalty tokens and them forcing people to stay in the team to get the permanents camo.
  13. What they failed was team bonus for weaker team. Currently it only gives extra +50/100% for the team points, but weaker team is still weaker. If they had made it so that weaker team bonus would affect your personal points (even if bonus was something smaller, +20/50%) we would see people jumping to weaker team because that would allow them to farm their personal 4 boxes in shorter time time.
  14. Thank you for your long post. I know that already, but as I wanted to keep post short I used points instead. Some of boundaries are arbitrary and subjective in nature and ships importance can be on different level to strict points. List was not meant to be 100% fit for everything list, but list showing that importance of ships is long continuum and not simple binary "was build / was not build". For example some unfinished ships like Graf Zeppelin is much more interesting than some late war destroyer that sailed few months "during the war" and never did see enemy. My main point was that you can't simply include every unfinished and planned ships as "just paper ship" (or you can for your self, but do not expect everyone else to think the same) and even constructed ships that sailed have different values depending on ships history. Something almost finished like said Graf Zeppelin or never constructed ships like Montana are quite different from some "plans" like H44 even if all were never finished. Warspite with it's long history of battles during both World Wars has more value than Kutuzov/Sverdlov even if both were constructed and sailed. At least for me.
  15. That's all fine. Just acknowledge that some other people do separate concept study from partially build ship. For me it is: 1. Ships that sailed with distinguished combat service. 2. Ships that sailed and participated in war. 3. Ships that sailed (Swedish, Spanish, post war etc. with no combat history). 4. Ships that were under construction, but not finished. 5. Ships that were planned and authorized, but never started. 6. Ships that were planned but not authorized (like turned down plans etc.). 7. Ships that were just design study, but not meant to be build. 8. Napking corner drawings. 9. WG fantasy department ships. And add in somewhere there WG implausible mutation fantasy upgrades on real existing ships. For me ships under construction are much more "real" than some theoretical design study. And that would be it.