Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About Kartoffelmos

  • Rank
    Sub Lieutenant
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  1. Compliments

    Can I get a source on this? I can only find the latest karma update from 0.6.6 (addition of daily reports/compliments based on your karma score) and the patches before that does not mention any further karma limitations besides the removal of division boosting. It is a bit silly if it's true though, as then the different compliment options literally makes no sense. Giving a player compliments for both "plays well" and "good manners" shouldn't be the same as only sending one compliment.
  2. Compliments

    Because otherwise, you could boost clan members that you meet in battles with well... unlimited points. As of right now, the karma system isn't really that important except for seeing if other people thought you did well/bad or acted in a good manner so there is no reason to change it. It's not like you are in danger of running out of compliments on a regular basis. Reports, on the other hand...
  3. Khronstadt has worse accuracy and armour though, but yes, I agree that WG should have tested other variants before going for the "tanky cruiser with uptiered BB guns" approach. Giving her actual Khronstadt-armour along with the current weaknesses would have been an interesting version of the ship in the way that she would both take and dish out a lot of damage. Additionally, other cruisers would have stealth or armour advantages over her which would justify the guns. It still might have been too good (or bad), but at least one would see how it worked . I mean, it's like WG's idea of balancing is to take a strong platform, add a strong gimmick and suddenly wonder what they'll do when the result is broken (radar Conqueror, Stalingrad, initial radar PA DDs).
  4. A bold claim to make considering some of the quotes I listed. Because people were actually defending the second iteration? Really now? Maybe you should read my post again? Also, feel free to pinpoint exactly where I wrote that "everybody who wants US autobounce angles will not settle for anything less than the second iteration". You are stretching it a bit here, but yes, a fragile platform would be (more) balanced with those guns and would make the ship more fitting of a cruiser slot as well. Sadly, WG found the ship to be deserving of 50 mm armour and decided that a higher citadel was all it took to make her more vulnerable (which only affects battleships if you don't give your broadside to cruisers). The guns themselves aren't that big of a problem, but when you take the survivability of the ship into account, they become rather silly. Well, I meant that she would have slightly worse accuracy than the rest of the tier X cruisers. At the time, she had the same dispersion as Zao which at 22,9 km range is better than Moskva, Hindenburg and Henri IV (not by much in the case of Moskva/Henri, but still). It might have been terrible, but I would have liked to see it tested at least. Giving her a raised citadel and calling it a day was perhaps one of the most idiotic ways to balance the ship since: it only made her more vulnerable against battleship plunging fire the 50 mm side armour still protects her from f.ex. the citadel hits that DM regularly takes it did not really make her any more vulnerable against cruisers since an ambush from the side would yield the same results with the lower citadel placement HE resistance did not change at all
  5. I'm just saying (technically writing) that arguing for the ship to have AP only (and even keeping the US autobounce angles) when the ship was that broken did not look particularly good. Especially since the AP only solution had rather silly parameters back then. Why is the US autobounce angles such an issue? Purely because it adds a much greater need to angle against one particular ship and thus she will act as a pseudo-battleship despite not having the ability to overmatch. Yes, you have to angle against ships like the Hindenburg as well, but she relies on rather flat broadsides to deal damage. With Stalingrad? Not so much. Not to mention that "being spotted from the moon" is a rather weak argument considering she "only" has 720 m worse concealment than the Moskva. With those guns, 720 m (0,55 m with all concealment skills and upgrades) should not be that big of a deal. Sure, Moskva can fire HE, but you can target superstructures and more importantly, force an enemy cruiser to either sail in a predictable pattern (which your battleships will enjoy) or to disengage.
  6. First of all, I don't see why you take that statement "personally" (I'm exaggerating somewhat here) as it's not like it's directed towards you. Second of all: This was when it had US autobounce angles and a lot of the "it has to be unique" crowd acted as if the ship deserved to be OP (it doesn't) or that it was balanced at that stage (it wasn't, even WG admitted that when the raised the citadel). I would have liked to see a Stalingrad without US autobounce angles and a less silly accuracy instead of a raised citadel (which didn't really change much), but WG was of another opinion. Sure, it might not have been any less broken with those changes, but at least WG would have tested it.
  7. Little poll about a WG poll :/

    It's a pretty old change, but they made the top/bottom caps in control of their respective teams at the start of the game. Prior to this, you would have to cap them manually, something that lead to destroyers wasting time at the start of the game (and partly promoting middle rushes). I don't believe that this is their source of data, not even partially, since it's such an old change, but it is at least one example of a good change.
  8. The thing is, Graf Spee's inconsistent guns compared to a platform with rather weak armour, few turrets with long reload, mediocre concealment, slow speed (for a cruiser) and sluggish rudder shift makes her rather unappealing to me. I might have been spoiled by the Aoba in the armour department (a , but I find that Graf Spee does not have the armour nor DPM to stand up to other cruisers. The overmatching helps but the accuracy isn't exactly in your favour. She does have the heal though, which helps her stay alive long enough to make a difference.
  9. Normal cruiser guns give a bit more leeway with your angling since you don't have to angle to the "hard-autobounce" range in order to bounce shells (at longer ranges, of course). With higher penetration, you will need to do or pray to RNGesus that the "chance to bounce" roll will be on your side. But yes, in most cases, the higher penetration will not matter all that much, but in Stalingrad's case, the high shell velocity and high penetration will make her a threat at longer ranges. According to gamemodels3d, she has comparable dispersion to the Colorado: same horizontal dispersion but worse (482 vs. 580) vertical spread (due to the shell velocity, I guess) so she has indeed BB-levels of dispersion. An in-game comparison confirms this as well (248 m max dispersion at 18,8 km vs. 241 km at 18,2 km). Graf Spee has 1,8 sigma so it is rather misleading to use her as an example of the gun performance in any case. EDIT: Graf Spee is also a terrible platform (weak armour, few guns, etc.). This does not seem to be the case with the new ships.
  10. There is a slight difference in damage, penetration and auto-bounce angles (not any more in the case of Stalingrad though). It's almost as if you are confirming what I wrote. By preventing pushes, you are being limited to positional warfare and thus more static gameplay. Yes, other cruisers also have the potential to punish broadsides, but that requires the target cruiser to be out of position/spotted at an awkward moment in most cases (or isolated). The aforementioned difference in penetration and damage between normal cruisers and the "super-cruisers" will make these ships nearer the threat level of battleship as opposed to other cruisers. As for "you don't have to angle against everything", of course you don't, but it does not help when you get additional ships with rather punishing alpha damage. It would have been okay if they had rather weak armour, but alas they don't.
  11. You cannot angle against all of them though and I suspect that games will be even more boring if these new super-cruisers become popular since they will prevent pushes with their accuracy.
  12. Little poll about a WG poll :/

    I usually receive polls about the new versions (well, not all versions), but I've not seen a question regarding the new cap zones. Having said that, the updated Two Brothers layout is vastly superior to the old one, but that does not contribute to the effects that WG stated. All the other maps did not benefit from fewer cap zones because it promotes lemmingtrains and offer less options and tactics. I guess the latter is good for the more errr.... questionable player base but it is not good for the game as a whole. Additionally, I find it funny that instead of promoting team work so that one side does not get an early destroyer/cap advantage, WG decides to change the maps. How about trying to reduce passive BB behaviour instead so that the other classes can fulfil their roles on equal terms?
  13. Why would anyone want to switch to a more punishing class when they can simply play the most comfortable class in the game and/or the soon to be almost as comfortable class? Because they take up a cruiser slot. Sure, the guns cannot overmatch like regular battleships, but you have the dispersion to make up for it. Additionally, you have more hit points, which means more staying power (which usually is a cruiser's weakness). Who cares about that though?
  14. Nerf BBs pl

    What else is new?
  15. Why there are no reports about reports anymore??

    If I remember correctly, the message will only show up if you have received two separate reports. As such, it might not be as bugged as you think. EDIT: Confirmed: (Source)