• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About DerKleine

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile DerKleine
  1. He's not entirely wrong with that one. Or here, one of my personal favourites...
  2. You're assuming that the pen buff that you get makes a difference on all ships, when my whole point is that for many of the Atlanta's preferred targets that is not the case. For these ships you aren't getting a better pen-to-shatter ratio, you're just lowering your fire rate due to not having BFT and lowering your fire chance due to IFHE.
  3. It's irrelevant that your fire chance increases by 60 (with flags) - 75% (without flags), if not more? (assuming both builds have DE, but only the non-IFHE build also has BFT for the "if not more" part)
  4. I like how you ignore that ALL Tier 8+ Battleships are covered in 32mm+ Armour and even for Tier 6 and 7 there are some targets where IFHE is not very beneficial against: Fuso for the most part has 35mm deck armour, Bayern has 40mm, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst have 50mm. IFHE is NOT beneficial against these ships, you're just hurting your fire chance. It's also worth noting that the Atlanta's shell arcs kind of favour hitting the deck or superstructure, so unless you're brawling, belt Armour isn't particularly relevant. Oh and if you think that you can't do damage to T8+ cruisers without IFHE, well I have this fantastic example... The problem with assuming that IFHE offers a significant benefit against higher tier cruisers, is that it's only true if you're right next to them. All you have to do to beat an Atlanta with any cruiser that is not an atlanta is stay beyond 10km range, the Atlanta won't be able to do any significant damage to a maneuvering, maneuverable target at that kind of range regardless of IFHE.
  5. If we're going to rate opinions by stats (which I'm not saying is wrong), then let me offer a counterpoint: Here are my Atlanta stats from the past 90 days: That's right: 88.46% winrate, 61.287 damage (and hey, I think the 77% Survival Rating is worth mentioning as well. I really should play a bit more aggressively sometimes, as winning games too quickly has cost me damage quite often) Surely I must be using IFHE to get that kind of damage, right? Well no. As of right now, this is my build: Why don't I use IFHE? Let's take a look at the targets it helps against: These are mostly Tier 6 and some Tier 7 Battleships, or some Tier 7 and all Tier 8 and 9 cruisers (other than Royal Navy ones). (I say some Tier 7 battleships, as the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau don't actually have all that much 25mm armour). Against the relevant Tier 6 and 7 BBs, IFHE is undoubtedly a game changer. However these battleships are pretty much all really slow. They're easy to hit and can't exactly rush you. In short: They're not much of a threat. The relevant cruisers are pretty much all heavy cruisers. If you engage them at anything other than extremely close range, you're going to have a bad time (assuming the other player has something close to resembling a brain). The Atlanta is not a higher tier cruiser killer (unless it's at very close range). It can be overmatched by 203mm guns. It doesn't have the health for those engagements. It quickly loses any advantages at range due to the speed and maneuverability of cruisers. The AR / DE / BFT Combo on the other hand helps against everything. in some cases not as much as IFHE, in others, like say if you're spamming one of the many Bismarcks (or literally any other higher tier BB, as well as Tier 5 and some Tier 6 and 7 BBs), that fire chance is going to make quite a difference, whereas IFHE will not. Basically IFHE helps a lot if you're top tier, but hurts more if you're not. My commander configuration focuses more on making it a competitive ship in any matchmaking situation. Another thing to consider is that for the targets that you do have trouble doing direct HE damage to, AP is also an option. Your AP output is also buffed by both AR and BFT. Now I'm not saying don't take IFHE ever, but anyone claiming it's beneficial in almost any situation is simply wrong. It has its upsides and downsides, whether they fit your target selection is up to you.
  6. I don't think that was 15JG52Adler's point, several people here claimed that the ship "has no weakness" and that there's "nothing bad about her", when the ship has the least amount of guns at T8, a long reload and low damage HE. The guns of a Hipper/Eugen are not scary. In addition to that, the concealment of those two ships is pretty awful with nothing to really make up for it (like smoke on the Kutuzov). If you find it fun, then great, good for you, but it's still a ship with significant weaknesses in certain areas compared to other T8 cruisers.
  7. If you want a fun german cruiser and battleship captain trainer, the Scharnhorst is a way better choice than the Eugen in any case.
  8. The problem with special MM for a single class of ship at a tier, is that it doesn't work with divisions. (It can be abused) I think a better solution to the MM problem in general would be to get a better mix of ship tiers in each match. For example A tier 7 carrier should not be in a mostly T5/6 game, but at the same time a T8 carriers shouldn't find themselves as the only T8 ships in a T9/10 game either. This is just an example, and I think the same should be true for other classes as well. For example recently I was in a T6-8 match where there was just a single T6 ship: A Nürnberg. That's not really fair for that player either.
  9. While I'm sure we could both cherry pick stats for hours, this is completely besides the point and has nothing to do with AA skills being able to make the difference between a carrier being able to strike you without issues and a carrier being reluctant to strike you.
  10. Well actually I went off to a cap on my own, since I knew that with Defensive Fire I could at least prevent the carrier from doing anything serious for long enough for me to be able to get into a better position, which is exactly what happened. AA specs aren't always about wiping planes from the sky all the time, being able to prevent strikes from happening when they are inconvenient for you is often enough. Absolutely. The Udaloi synergizes quite well with plenty of AA skills (AFT, BFT), and despite only having a 14 point captain in this case Manual AA was well worth those 4 points. While the Udaloi's AA won't wipe squads from the sky without defensive fire, it does prevent the carrier from parking his planes in a large circle around you.
  11. However your example isn't in any way comparable: A more accurate version would be: "Khaba is not OP, 80% of ships can easily counter it if they spec into the non-existent "increased shell velocity" captain skill" because no, you don't need a Minotaur or DM to stop a carrier. The majority of high tier ships can prevent a carrier from being effective when specced for it. Glad to hear you didn't get the point one bit. To Illustrate this point: Clearly any good Taiho player can go after any DD he chooses. Oh wait...
  12. Note: Since your points were for some reason not numbered (or should I say lettered) in a way that made sense I've edited this quote from A B A B to A B C D: A: Those stats on their own don't mean a whole lot, not that I'd expect someone with 0 games in carriers to understand. Let's compare the top tier 8 Destroyer to the top tier 8 Battleship by winrate in the past two weeks: Ship Winrate Damage K/D Survival Plane Kills Lo Yang 52.45% 27267 0.8 31% 0.4 Alabama 53,28% 59982 1.4 42% 3 Clearly Battleships are waaaay OP/Destroyers waaaay UP, right? Or, you know, maybe different classes just have different roles that lead to different stats... B: Have you played AA-specced ships? Most people don't. A surprsing amount of people still think turning out of torpedo bombers is the right thing to do. Now on the other hand if you do know the basics of manuvering when there are torpedoes incoming and have specced a ship with at least decent (Read: not IJN DD-Levels of) AA, then yes, you can become pretty much untouchable to carriers. How is it the fault of the carrier player that so many people still believe that AA is too situational to be worth speccing into, and instead take other skills that are also way more situational/can be replaced by skill than they realize? The point is: The real problem is that the gap between no investment into AA and full investment into AA is too large, not that carriers are overpowered. If people were to actually spec into AA, carriers would basically not be able to do anything. If you had played carriers (which you haven't), then maybe you'd have had the experience of playing against a team where all the cruisers just happen to have decent AA and each group of ships just happens to have one of these cruisers with them. The strength of a carrier is not just determined by the carrier, but the AA of the ships it faces, which is largely dependent on captain skills. It's the choice of non-carrier players to take or leave these captain skills, carrier players are not responsible for that. C: Ok, now this argument is just outright stupid, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Why is there a only 1 CV per team rule? With a team of 9 ships having two carriers would put too much of a focus on the cooperation of multiple carriers on a team, and not on the tactics of the ground players A mismatch in the number of carriers per team just doesn't work. Not because carriers are overpowered, but because a single carrier simply can not win against two carriers of equal skill level. If this rule wasn't in place any team that doesn't have the maximum number of carriers would put the (few) carrier(s) they have at a disadvantage Besides, using coordinated play with multiple carriers as an argument for carriers being OP just doesn't make sense. That's not something that ever happens in a random battle. D: Spotting in randoms is unreliable and in terms of both the gameplay and the actual reward, unrewarding. Circling planes above a ship in a random battle doesn't take much skill, this can't be compared to competitive where the risks involved when spotting with planes are much greater (due to better fighter management of the opposing carrier and significantly more effective AA)
  13. 0.6.3

    Zusätzlich zur bereits bestehenden Kritik (der ich mich nur anschließen kann) sind mir in den paar spielen die ich auf dem Public Test Server hatte noch ein paar Dinge aufgefallen. Autodrops werfen aus einer recht großen Distanz ab. Ich war in meiner König unterwegs mit einer Insel recht weit neben mir (definitiv weit genug weg um Torpedos ins Wasser zu kriegen, aber da der gegnerische Träger auf Autodrops angewiesen war, landeten seine Torpedos alle im Berg. Man könnte sagen, dass er von der anderen Richtung hätte angreifen sollen (was viel länger gedauert hätte und hey, jetzt wo man sowieso nicht anhand von Skill den Luftkamp gewinnen kann sondern das vom Matchmaking entschieden wird kann ich verstehen, dass leute nicht zu viel Zeit über der gegnerischen Flotte verbringen möchten), aber andererseits hätte er wie gesagt die Torpedos schon ins Wasser kriegen sollen. Klar könnte ich mich darüber Freuen, dass mir 6k Schaden erspart wurden (es würde ja sowieso wohl nur ein Torpedo treffen bei den Autodrops), aber es fühlt sich auch auf der anderen Seite einfach nicht gut an wenn man nur nicht für seine Fehler bestraft wird weil dem Gegenspieler die Möglichkeit entzogen wurde, dies zu tun. Wieder zur Abwurfdistanz: mein Punktemäßig bestes Spiel in der Bogue war nur so gut (wenn man das überhaupt gut nennen kann), weil ich einen AFK DD versenken konnte. Warum ich dies erwähne? Der Autodrop geschah zwangsweise aus so hoher Distanz genau mittig auf den DD (ich hatte einen aus sechs Torpedobomber verloren), dass nur der mittlere Torpedo traf. Es war ein stehendes Ziel. Der einzige Grund warum der DD gestorben ist, war weil er nicht da war um sein Flooding zu reparieren. Wie bescheuert ist das denn? Jedes Schiff mit smoke hat jetzt einen "oh, dein Angriff kommt gerade ungünstig, könntest du bitte so zwei Minuten damit warten?"-Knopf. Smoke sollte ein Sichtschutz sein, nicht ein magisches Mittel um vor Angriffen zu schützen. Es ist sowohl bescheuert, dass der Träger keine Angriffe auf Ziele im Rauch versuchen kann, als auch dass die Schiffe im Rauch nicht lernen, dass sie im Rauch nicht unverwundbar sind. Somit wird der Lerneffekt für alle klassen geschadet. Es ist einfach langweilig. Ok, ihr wollt erfahrenere Spieler von den low-tier Trägern abhalten, aber für neue Spieler sehe ich hier auch nichts wirklich Spaßiges dran. Spiele sollen doch Spaß machen, oder? Im wesentlichen wurde fast alles, was durch können beeinflusst wurde von diesen Trägern entfernt. Wozu braucht man da überhaupt noch den Spieler? Da kann man doch gleich cookie clicker spielen gehen. Es wurde zwar schon davor erwähnt, aber ich will es nochmal betonen: Was ist mit dem anklicken von Schiffen zum angreifen los? Warum muss man entweder genau auf das Schiff (eine sehr kleine Fläche) oder den Namen klicken um anzugreifen? Es ist sehr frustrierend Angriffe auf etwas kleineres als ein Schlachtschiff überhaupt zu befehlen. Leute, macht einfach mal ein gescheites interaktives Tutorial für die Schiffsklassen, ich bin mir sicher ihr findet genug Leute hier die euch gerne dabei Helfen würden die richtigen Sachen neuen Spielern bei zu bringen. Gebt neuen Trägerfahrern eine Mission/Missionen bei denen sie auf verschiedene Ziele Angriffe üben können. Zeigt dem neuen Zerstörerspieler, dass die Torpedobomber die gerade an ihm vorbeifliegen nicht zwangsweise für das Schlachtschiff hinter ihm bestimmt sind und er auch Ausweichmanöver einleiten soll. Am ende sollte es euer Ziel sein schlechte Spieler gut zu machen, nicht gute Spieler auf das Level der schlechten herab zu setzen. Wenn ein Träger einen Kreuzer zurück in den Hafen befördert weil er auf eingehende Bomber nicht reagiert ist das genau das gleiche wie wenn ein Schlachtschiff einen geradeaus breitseite-fahrenden Kreuzer aus größerer Entfernung auslöscht. Das schlechte Spieler für ihre Handlungen bestraft werden ist weder auf Träger, noch auf T4/5 beschränkt. Edit: Eine Sache die ich vergessen habe: Wenn ihr neuen CV Spielern eine bessere Chance geben wollt, warum passt ihr nicht einfach das Matchmaking so an, dass Leute für die ersten 20 - 50 Spiele in einem T4/T5 CV wenn möglich nur mit Leuten, die auch in dieser Gruppe sind gematcht werden? Bei diesen Tierstufen gibt es bestimmt genug Spieler um etwas in der Richtung zu machen.
  14. 0.5.13

    Are you sure that's what this thread is for? Anyway, the player profile screen in terms of what you can see isn't bad, but the performance is absolutely dreadful. Also I don't think all sounds should be turned off while viewing them.
  15. 0.5.13

    Description: Tech tree doesn't take previously researched upgrades into account when researching new ships, asks you to re-research hull upgrades necessary to unlock the next ship Reproduction steps: Research all the necesary upgrades needed to advance in the ship line. Try and research the next ship. It will tell you "You will also research: Myoko (B) , Myoko ©" (for example) even if you have already researched these hulls before. Result: New ships could cost way more to research (in the PT it has pretty much no effect due to all the upgrades requiring 1XP to research) Expected Result: It shouldn't be necessary to re-research previous upgrades to research a new ship Example: All upgrades for the Myoko are researched and purchased When researching the Mogami I am asked to re-research these hull upgrades.