Jump to content
Server restart - 20/06/2019 Read more... ×


Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles



About Kartoffelmos

  • Rank
    Sub Lieutenant
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Solid? No. Reasonable? Yes. Compare the ship stats of Shima to Gearing and you will understand what I mean. Does the 0,4 km concealment make up for all the other disadvantages? In the hands of the best Shima players, sure, but for everyone else? Really? Because that was not the case previously. What happened to "not trying to be a jerk"? You don't have to play the ships to see if something clearly isn't working with regards to balance. In any case: And concealment and great AA. Good guns and good concealment on a BB is downright broken if you know what you are doing which is why I think the proposed buffs are laughable and the nerfs only made her less comfortable to play. Maybe that's the problem? If you ask me, it seems like a lot of people are trying to play Slava like a conventional BB but that's actually hurting the ship's performance (as I wrote, I find the entire concept to be a bad addition). That's untrue: Range [km] Slava, horizontal/vertical disp. [m] Kremlin, horizontal/vertical disp. [m] 6 120/23 50/15 10 144/36 105/34 15 173/51 173/63 20 201/68 242/97 For citadel hits/broadsides, they are roughly equal at ~12 km since the vertical dispersion is much more important for that purpose. Which is way more convenient in Slava because she can retreat even further and still be effective while Kremlin cannot do the same. I actually have the same opinion regarding the Colbert, but I find the survivability buff to be silly considering the strengths of the ship. It's a bit like giving a heal to Atlanta because she is (overly) fragile. To be fair though, not even close range AA would help against slingshot dive bombers which is why I don't find it to be an especially bad disadvantage. The rest of the AA values are solid and flak will only help against bad CV players. I actually have no idea if you know how to play these ships or not. I just doubt that Slava's guns are supposedly worse than those of Kremlin at longer ranges given the available information. And then we have the Yudachi. IJN torps are already bad except for when a player is caught doing a turn or sailing completely straight (alternatively if you launch enough torpedoes to saturate an area) and Yudachi has even worse ones. Oh well... I'll agree that arguing about unreleased ships is slightly silly but I just cannot agree with the direction WG is going with these changes.
  2. Nope. Just as I don't need to have played Belfast to realise how strong the ships is. I mean, it's not really hard to use the stats of ships to figure out the playstyle and if you have the armour layout information, you can also make a good prediction of how the ships will perform. Though, this depends on how good you are at the game as bad players don't really understand which stats that supports the specific playstyles. This is not a veiled insult by the way (which I realise is less credible since I pointed it out, but I needed to say it just the same). Whether a ship is comfortable to play is another matter entirely. But now I'm curious: were those ships available on the Public Test server (just checked: they aren't) or are you really asking me if I'm a supertester (which I'm not and I assume that you knew this) who broke the NDA? No, I won't, because they nerfed things that were irrelevant to the playstyle of the ship (bar the reload of course). The accuracy change meant that she became better at her supposed weak area (while not really that much worse at longer ranges) while both the heal and turret traverse merely meant that she would be "forced" to play at max range where those nerfs does not matter. If you have the opportunity to always disengage (and always be effective while playing safe), what will one less heal really accomplish? Really? Then I must assume that you played the ship incorrectly. Slava has all the advantages while staying at range (which is a terrible design choice by the way) while Kreml shines in mid-/close-range. Stating the opposite is like saying the Yamato has no place since the Kurfurst/Conqueror/Montana exist (or vice versa if you will). 1. Which is terrible for open-water fighting, but really good for contesting caps and playing defensively behind islands. 2. I wonder why. It's almost as if the ship is a glass cannon (with high mobility when speed boost is active) and should be played accordingly (island cover, etc.). The arcs also supports this playstyle. 3. That's extremely dishonest. IFHE only makes her "bad" at damaging battleships (and certain sections of some cruisers) so her "bad" HE penetration isn't really an issue. Just like Worcester, she is also really annoying to face in a cruiser. Though, for the sake of consistency, I don't really think that she was that broken before the proposed buffs (though too strong versus cruisers) but I really don't see why she should receive an increase in survivability whilst keeping her firepower. 4. 1-6 km AA range is mediocre now? Defensive fire also affects all ranges so I'm not sure why only the midrange is relevant. The only issue is that the long-range DPS have a slow reload (hooray for hidden stats) but I hope that this will be fixed sooner or later to ensure consistent AA behaviour. In any case, the performance (with the exception of the close-range aura) is comparable to Worcester (slightly worse) so I don't see her AA being weak at all. I may be biased since I haven't played the ships (which you already knew, so why did you even bother asking? ) but I also predicted that the GC (and Conqueror for that matter) would be quite strong when a lot of players claimed that their armour (or lack thereof in the case of Conqueror) would balance the ships or even render them useless.
  3. Yudachi, a ship which is commonly regarded as underwhelming, gets nerfed while Slava and Colbert, both ships which are regarded as very strong, get buffed. Either there has been an influx of dubious players amongst the ST which skews the statistical data or WG is being drunk silly again.
  4. Kartoffelmos

    DD carries the game, CV gets the blame

    The DDs played correctly; the OP played like a potato. What else is new?
  5. Kartoffelmos

    Colbert the new T10 Premium

    Battleships will turn around no matter if all they receive are shatters so I don't see that as a valid argument. As always, fire damage is manageable as long as you don't overextend (aka sit under a rain of HE shells for longer periods of time) and the cruiser isn't even effective at 15 km range so I don't see her "18 km range" come into play. Maybe if you sit stationary in a BB but then again, a Worchester (or any other cruiser except Minotaur for that matter) would be much more effective at dealing with such targets. As for other cruisers, she will be as annoying as a Worcester but with greater concealment. What this means is that if you cannot force her to use less guns (good luck with that if you aren't using a Henri or the larger cruisers) she will deal massive damage to you. Now whether or not a Worcester is OP is another argument entirely, but claiming that this will be the biggest threat to BBs is rather silly.
  6. Kartoffelmos

    Very interesting read / discussion about "Continuous AA"!

    @MrConway @Sub_Octavian @Crysantos Isn't it high time that nonsense like this gets fixed? Or are you planning to have the CV planes enter re-arm mode after they first enter the AA auras to make the behaviour equivalent for all classes?
  7. Kartoffelmos

    Colbert the new T10 Premium

    Why? It cannot penetrate 32 mm of armour and if you die due to fires, you have already overextended to some extent. A Worcester can do exactly the same thing, only better. I'm more worried about how annoying she will be to face in a cruiser with less armour (or lower tiers for that matter).
  8. Kartoffelmos

    Ranked Hell

    Hence the quotation marks .
  9. Kartoffelmos

    Ranked Hell

    Sooo... Enemy CV killed/neutralised all the DDs while the friendly CV did not. The enemy team got a points advantage since the friendly CV was more interested in "farming" damage. I wonder why you didn't win... (A replay would be helpful though )
  10. Kartoffelmos

    AFK cause carrier

    Not sure how what I wrote was supposedly defending toxicity, but I guess it falls under the "general CV rework discussion" category in any case.
  11. Kartoffelmos

    AFK cause carrier

    On the other hand, good players can strike without losing a lot of planes while bad players can completely fail their strike and lose all their planes. Good players have received more tools to deal damage while bad players can potentially perform a lot worse. This also ties in with the reworked AA and how there are very few no-fly zones left which means more opportunities for good players. Nothing is surprising when it comes to the CV rework .
  12. Kartoffelmos

    AFK cause carrier

    I can understand the frustration but I never stated that it can be excused or that players are "forced" into becoming more toxic (why are you trying to make it sound like I condone this behaviour?). They are choosing to act that way because they deem the CV-surface ship interaction to be unfair (which it is at the moment). Now, you can ban all toxic players or you can make the CVs less oppressing which would also would improve gameplay in general, or you can do both which would be the optimal solution. Toxic players are a problem and the CV rework is a problem. Both should be looked at but you cannot deny that the CV rework is decreasing the enjoyment and limiting gameplay/tactics for (most) non-CV players. Just pointing at the increase in toxicity without looking at the cause is rather silly, especially given the general opinion of the CV rework. And how do you suggest that we should prove that this was caused by the disapproval of carriers and not merely bad play? The opening post's example is one case but what about the players who sail into the enemy without letting their intentions known? You can't realistically prevent this behaviour.
  13. Kartoffelmos

    AFK cause carrier

    Not quite, but I believe that the player's reaction is caused by the fact that they were looking forward to something less annoying than the old RTS CVs and instead they got a CV system that is equivalent to having a bad RTS-CV on your team in every carrier game. I mean, why should a class that is not near the front lines have such a huge impact on the game? Even if we consider the deplanes/uselessness argument, a DD which is rendered useless (aka sunk) will redistribute the teams' points while a CV getting deplaned will "only" help the other CV in winning the murder race. I mean, how can this be considered fun and/or balanced? Not really, since I can build my case around how these things can be countered. Stating "just dodge" or "blob up" isn't really a valid argument if the CV knows what they are doing. Besides, BBs deserve all the hate they can get since they seem to be the winner of the AA rework lottery (and most other recent changes besides the "AP vs. DD" nerf) . Well, considering the fact that the CV rework is a failure (skill difference between carriers is still a concern despite what WG states and bad players fail even harder since there no longer is auto-attacks) except for the popularity increase, I can't say that the reaction is unjustifiable.
  14. Kartoffelmos

    AFK cause carrier

    Things I learned today: Stating an opinion with a "distasteful" analogy is considered aggressive. Having an opinion that differs from the norm is considered arrogant, especially if the opinion is more realistic than idealistic. CV players are terrible human beings The CV rework is a great success for everyone involved . Say what you will about the CV rework, but I can't help to find it funny that the end result is an increase in toxicity.
  15. Kartoffelmos

    Zero Damage Kill?

    Well, considering that a ship cannot sail around with 0 HP (if we assume that the in-game UI rounds the actual number up), I would not be surprised if WG implemented mathematically correct rounding in the feedback/post-game results. After all, consistency is not their strongest suit.