Bersigil

Players
  • Content count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1960

About Bersigil

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile Bersigil
  1. smoke

    So a Yamato inside the smoke will be spotted from 19km, a Yamato behind the smoke will be spotted from 2km or by air/flanking. THAT part needs some work. But the rest sounds really good. I think this could be one of the best balancing changes of the past few months.
  2. smoke

    Seems like a nice change. But there is something i do not understand: -is the penalty added to the base detection range? (so: concealed range for a dd is 6km, firing in smoke makes it 8,5 km -is the penalty applied to the 2km base spotting range every ship has (so our dd would be spotted from 4,5 km? -is the penalty applied per salvo and resets after 20 secons (so first salvo +2,5, second salvo +5, .... up to max range? -...
  3. Wait... so... We know that there are too many bbs (so cruisers have a hard time angling against them). Now you knowingly increase a mechanic, that - in case the cruiser is angled - will increase the damage he takes? CL/CA already get deleted when they go broadside. Fine. Their Front can be overmatched by most BB-shells. Not fine but... whatever... and now they take increased dmg when they angle? ... ... This is a joke... right? BTW: I thought you wanted to motivate BBs to switch ammo against DDs. And now you implement a new fuse, that makes it less important to switch ammo... Definitly a joke. Puh... I was worried.
  4. Thx. Have not laughed that hard for some time. Great guide!

     

    1. Streef_

      Streef_

      im offended that you laughed

      that guide was a serious piece of work and you should take it seriously too

      hopefully you will understand my guides in future :Smile_trollface:

  5. I'm starting to really doubt their abilities here. Don't get me wrong: I love the game and they did (and still do!) many things right, but there are a few (but major!) problems they just don't seem to be able to get a solution to. (Passive/static play, BBs without hardcounter (but every other class with one), the whole CV-trouble...) On the 13th September 2016 - when talking about the (cancelled) bow armour changes for BBs - Sub_Octavian stated "BB population increase is the real problem now. They are balancing on the edge of allowed combat effeciency and their numbers are growing. And they live too long. So we need to find the way to tweak them. The proposed way is actually the most delicate (God, I am happy you didn't see other options)." That was one year ago. And since then the situation has only gotten worse. And I can't see that the british (!) BB-line will make it any better - especially not in the way it is implemented now. I don't have the quotes for the CV-problems and promised solutions, but we all know they existed and the problems are not solved. And what really bothers me is that one point the players will be so used to BBs being just to stronk, that WG just can't rebalance them properly without upsetting the community.
  6. Like they fixed CVs in the year of the CV? Or in the year after? Or before they made any new Premium CVs? I guess the solution to the problem will be higher BB accuracy in 2018 - which will (according to WG) be a severe BB nerf, because no more stray shells hitting the evading ships? Well... at least until the implementation of that bugfix (that will be sold as a nerf to BBs and not as a bugfix!) they can bring out more OP BB-lines because they will nerf them in 2018...
  7. RN BB line features special main caliber AP shells fuse settings. Fuse delay is set to 0.15 seconds instead of regular 0.33 seconds. Fuse delay determines time of detonation after the shell is armed, and thus, it affects overall AP efficiency. AP shells with small fuse delay tend to detonate inside the target more often, causing less overpenetrations. So... We have a new BB tree with -amazing HE because of high(est?) Firechance and 1/4 HE-Penetration rule -great accuracy -cruiser-like stealth -probably OP Heal and -non-overpenetrating AP Now this will make life so much better for DDs and Cruisers... Thx WG... but I'm not sure that your solution to the (already admitted) BB overpolulation and overpowerdness against CA/CL and DDs is really a solution... or more of a deliberate and focused attemt at making it worse!
  8. Thing is this: if a BB "decloaks" 12 km broadside of a cruiser and opens fire, the cruiser is most likely dead within less than 10 seconds. A cruiser cant fight its way out of this situation. And no, this is not comparable to a DD being 7km away from a BB and in stealth. Torpedoes need just a little more time to travel and simple wasd-hacks helps against them. No chance for something similar for the cruiser against the BBs
  9. How do I bind my artillery-Camera to the right mouse button? It used to work but now it doesn't anymore... -Epic Fail: it wasn't the game. It was the mouse... -Edit Nr. 2: Understandable fail: the mouse had issues, but after I solved them the problem still exists: I get the message "key reserved". Can I somehow circumvent this automatic binding?
  10. Thanks!
  11. If i have ship XP on a ship that i did not convert to free xp by using dubloons and sell that ship, what happens to the ship XP? is ist lost?
  12. I totally agree. But I think that you could increase their accuracy and thus reduce RNG (and promote skill) with a few steps, that would also help the game: 1. Remove overmatch. This would help Cruisers that dont sail broadside immensly. 2. decrease dmg, but dont decrease penetration. With the increased Accuracy a full broadside should do the same dmg on average, but there should not be so much Deviation between a lucky and an unlucky shot. This should not make BBs stronger but make other ships more survivable.
  13. So... increase the accuracy? I don't think we can do it without reducing dmg. But I suspect this game has way to much RNG already. Because you obviously don't like the idea of increasing BB Accuracy: would you rather have more Dispersion (meaning a more luck based game)?
  14. ...my mistake: I've meant overmatching, not overpenetrating. (edited original post!) THAT would have been an amazingly dumb idea indeed. Sry... seriously sry....