HaganeNoKaze

Beta Tester
  • Content count

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5342

About HaganeNoKaze

  1. While you are several valids point, please remember that every player play for himself first. CVs are no exception. Well, you could have some potato CV which just are doing crap again and again, never spotting (even not knowing what "spotting" mean), suiciding planes on heavy AA platform and such crap. On the other hand, on certain game, while you are certain what's happening on your side is the keypoint of the battle, something bigger is happening on the other side. Consider too that spotting do not grant that much exp, and we all play for our own progression first... (And certain defeats grant more experience/money for playing just for yourself than certains victory playing/devoting enterly to the team... ! (Which is... stupid, I could only agree on that)) Allocating just one squadron to spot for your allies could prevent you to even being able to intervene in cerains conditions, or even could help you to end with no planes at all if you allocat a fighter to this task... (well, extreme exemple, no sane player would dedicate a fighter to only spotting lol) Or extreme case, team being like "me aa me aa me aa me aa (even some playing in DM... Iowa AA spec... or such ship), me spot me spot me spot" while the ennemy carrier playing strictly AS and outplaying you, then you're ending like "I don't care", being reported without being able to do any crap. So, I would prefer to see your game before siding you or CV. Cause, maybe you ended with an infinite shitty carrier player, or maybe you misjudge what's happening. Please just consider that CV is already enough frustrating to play when your team allways call for babysitting while you are quite busy to manage several squadrons at several poins of the maps.
  2. So you'd probably never play a well designed/developped game. Cause the principle of any game is... providing fun, even in defeat, and this kind of game exists. We could simply quote Chess. Any class should start to be fun before being efficient. In the case of the CV, I would find better to hit with 150 torpedoes each game dealing each for 1 point of damage instead of having 1 torpedo nearly impossible to hit with able to OS any ship, or even a nuclear warhead !... the first case is fun, even if you deal only 150 damage per game, the second is not and stupid above that, even if you deal thousand and thousand damage. The problem with this class is it's nearly impossible to balance: If too much tools/damage capability is granted, the CV will just win the battle alone while sinking any ship around, or helping team to do it. Which is stupid and unwanted. If not enough tools/damage capability or too good AA defence is granted, the CV would be useless and not fun to play. Actually, the CV is quite efficient in good hands, but so [edited]annoying to play, boring as hell. Especially for a player considering History, thinking that losing all planes without reason is unfair and do not give will to play (no sane player would accept to loose plane if it's worthless). On paper, to balance CV, CV should be able to: Deal damage without being able to sink any ship in one strike. Spotting a ship without being able to perma spotting it (I am even thinking that DD shouldn't be spotted by planes, it would resolve several problem, or only under certain conditions). AA should kill some planes without rampaging entire squadrons in a couple of seconds. Nations should have air parity at all tier (fighters talking) with one unique setup, then only skill would matter and every player would have his chance to perform well... Being able to deal with any ship without being a counter to it. Being able to land a hit to any ship alone, even with AA spec (point already stated by WG that a surface ship alone shouldn't be able to counter a CV alone.) Giving some help to the team without being dominant or winning tool in some good hands. Etc etc... Well, it's too much to balance. From some other PoV, well, CV is a class that should just disappear cause: You can't fight again something you don't see. Unlimited range = BS "I w@nn@ play w/o being disturbed, this is sooooo unfair... !" "I don't care about the fly/reload time of the planes, if it's targetting me, then it's a no !" And any other selfish/hypocrite whines/cries... In that case, the player base is just selfish, calling for "we don't care about history, it's a game" (several of them call for History reference when we are talking about surface ships... such hypocrites.), and would probably never accept it.
  3. Wow ! I just notice this topic now, my favourite Kancolle shipgirl has nothing really special, but she is important for me (And I considering her sister as her in WoW ! :p ) :
  4. Year of the CV again. After the joke in 2016, WG repeat it again in 2017. Instead of focusing on nullify the capacitiy of carrier to engage such or such target (cause AA nullify CV, it does not limit them ! You infringe your owns rules about fair play by preventing CV players to play and habving fun..), It should be interesting to improve other spec of the ships (improving DD concealment vs planes, reducing damage of Air Torpedoes/Bombers agains DD)... I heared that devs working on AA and the ones working on CV are not in the same team... If that's true, it's very stupid. 2018, Year to remove CV ?...
  5. Rejoignez nous ! Nous le voulons !
  6. So good ! Nice idea !
  7. Meanwhile i agree that BBs are supposed to counter CAs... on the other hand, DDs are supposed to counter BBs and it's not done as efficiently than BBs vs CAs. This is a problem, definitely, counter shouldn't mean One shot (cause it's actually the case 1 for 2 and extremely easily...), or i would be fine if DD could delete BBs as easily than BBs can delete CAs. Or instead that BBs should counter CAs as easily than DDs can counter BBs or CAs can (well, not as efficiently that it should be...) counter DDs. Plus, only the BBs has the capacity to defend itself efficiently againts the class that is supposed to counter it...
  8. @Drunken_Jedi Nice ideas there. Sorry for the bad english ! Well, there are several balance issues about carriers: -Planes shouldn't be able to fly and spot without limit, especially destroyers that suffer about it. Fly time should be limited, and planes spot range reduced (anti-historic, but it's a game, who cares about history in a game). -AA is actually too much powerful, but satisfy the mass into the player base that couldn't accept to play in team (maybe they are selfish, who knows). -AA being automatic, and players usually improving it only for selfish reasons, shooting down planes shouldn't reward some credit and exp until several conditions are respected (like being near from a certain number of allies, or team mate for example). And fighters shooting strike planes should reward more exp when being close from allies. -Fighters and setup should balanced between IJN and US, to permit air parity from both nation. -Manual and automatic aiming should be balanced around several factor, torpedoes should be a bit longer in manual, but a bit closer than actually in automatic, that would permit a better prevention of the damage for the destroyers, awared cruisers and battleships, but without permitting to be completely avoided everytime. -Reducing strike planes damages while reducing the overall AA (let say 60% less damage for 45-50% less AA, just for example) wouldn't change the stats to much, but would improve the entire class, making it funnier to play. -Nerf manual AA control, this skill is to efficient and to easy to use (ctrl+click to trigger it... so skillful ), permitting certains ships to be almost invulnerable to Airstrikes (or Give some skills to be invulnerable to shells, like shield or CIWS targetting shells ! That would sound the same then.) Now, there are more issues, around player base, that do not permit to carriers to be balanced efficiently. -AS loadout are done to help the team, but things are a bit more complicated: -Players choosing this loadout play it for: -Truly helping the team (they are very very very rare). -Annoy ennemy carriers (They are the more numerous), cause they are trolls. -Others classes players want the carrier to play AS to support their team while they often, for the most of them, playing only for themselves and do not care about helping the team, they would to be covered by carrier but wouldn't never help the carrier... Quite paradoxical, selfish and hypocrite. -"Surface" players couldn't never accept to receive some damage from someone that they can't hit back. (On the other hand, they can accept to have an automatic system in game to prevent them to be damage and being rewarded for it (AA guns and secondaries), quite paradoxical again . Plus, some don't admit to be disturbed when playing afar without being threatened. -Players wanting to see carriers deleted are the perfect example of the population that would prevent to have a better balance and development for carriers. -"Whales" are for the most battleships players, so, it's normal for WG to "protect" them. Let's be honest, gain money prevail on the balance. But nothing abnormal there, they develop game to earn money. (This is why they were quite surprised when releasing Saipan and saw that she was been sold quite well.) -Wargaming games are fun when doing some damage and kills, CV are supposed to do some too, AS is definitely boring and not rewarding. But others player do not care since they think about themselves first and thinking that carrier is only here to cover their [edited], no damage need to them . Once again, paradoxical and hypocrite. To summary, carriers cannot be balanced well, the player base in wow cannot accept them for the most, as the most WoT players cannot accept artillery, in general for selfish and hypocritical reasons. There are several things that could be improved in game, but most would not be welcome by the ones do not playing them.
  9. @ghashpl Quite true, and very sad. WG prefer to satisfy the mass, including most of their "whales" (and most of them are just between average and bad). @Ishiro32 Great post, I am not agree with all points (especially when discussing about USN TBs VS IJN ones) but the post points one of the future problem. @Avenger121 Being OP and being fun are 2 differents things. I would even prefer to have 300 torpedoes hit by battle, inflicting 1 damage point with no flood chance by hit, instead of having only one torp (cause all planes falling down from AA) hit with a nuclear warhead. First is fun (though not efficient, but idc, second is op, and so boring.)
  10. Nothing to add about RPF, it's allways a NO ! About the change about Evasive Manoeuvers, the effort is welcome, but it remains a NO too: -Reducing speed means having less raids during the entire game, -40% gave in average 3-4 less raids, -20% is now, -2, -1 but it's allways too much damage reduction. Playing CV is enoug boring like this. -Increasing HP only during returning aircraft... okay, but no, considering you lost most of the aircraft during assault, there is no impact, your remaining planes will be still shot down (especially IJN planes) during return if squadron is already damaged -After testing, perk does not work if you add extra orders during return, for having skill working, you have to go back in straight line to the carrier... if you fly above ennemy fleet, perk or not, you loose your planes. But adding extra order restores your speed, in the end, you can still flee ennemy fighters. Finally, this perk is still useless, I would be more interestedby a perk for example: Lightened Armament: -Increase HP of attack aircraft squadron by 25% -Reducing the damage of all attacking planes by 40% It would be: -More fun for CV, since you would probably have more chance to do some raids. -Less stressful for ennemy ships, by receiving less damage (not really true for this, most of idiotic players from this game can just accept to receive damage, even if CV torpedoes would do only 1 damage they would still cry) I don't understand why we still have useless perks like Tail Gunner Expert, we even don't have the DPS of the tail gunner for the planes ! No real third perk to choose. Enough CV talk, This patch is still too much buff for BBs, even without talking about RPF crap. And instead of having real choices, now we can have more options easily (I still find ridiculous and stupid to permitting boosting both Secondaries and AA... Split them !) Akizuki nerf is... ridiculous, it's like forcing to take IFHE, when the ship is already hard to play. At least one word about RPF... Talking about DDs hunter... playing IJN DDs will sound like being a prey everytime, you weaponry is weaker, you can't deal with cannon fight, and every other DD in the game can kill you (no need to talk about Akizuki, the HE penetration nerf acheive to make her useless in gunboat fights. One more step into gunboat game, the most unskilled and uninteresting DD playstyle. Consider to remove IJN DDs please. To be honest, i don't know if IFHE could be efficient on cruisers or not, If someone already tried it, I am interested by results ! Battleships is just... noobish style as ever (I don't say I don't have fun with them, it's just too much no brain then, finally, you only die from stupid errors, your ships have too much efficiency, autodefense, and powerful item, the entire class kills the game by pushing to play them, close to no stress and unfeeling game when playing them..) Finally, the entire patch just push the game to a worst gameplay, easier, more stupid, too much noob friendly (and CryBB friendly too), and killing a bit more the interest to play it. We have more passive gameplay We can play alone without giving a crapof what is happening around.. yeah !! ..... [edited], initial teamplay (even if it was rare) in early game phase and versions was definitely better. Better to kill skills and bring winbutton. Patch after patch, we are heading to World of Battleship (You should already think about renaming it.)
  11. 0.6.0

    Well, I just gave a try on PT server and so far I can say:First of all, even if BFT is now a 3 points skill, it give 10% more AA than before, so CVs haters and AA buils will take it for sure, especially now you can have easily some pure and full AA spec and still have some points to spent... great ! Direction Center for Catapult seaplanes skill is... well no comment ! It gives more scouting capability to cruisers (okay), and battleships (no way !), plus still being more capable do defend themselves. Is this game a teamplay one ? Not really actually. Plus it's useless for scouting seaplanes.Let's give a shot to the new CVs skill:Evasive Manoeuvers is.... useless. Okay your planes have better chance to get back... but since there are really slow, there is no difference, the time they leave the AA area you give even more planes than before. This perk would have some kind of use if buffs weren't only for returning.Plus, since it gets longer to come back, I measured you have two or three less runs per game (considering staying at the edges of map for testing purpose). (Average runs per game are 11 without Evasive manoeuvers, 8 or 9 with it, with no improvements on effiency of those raids...) Finally, if you finish with some planes left (not even sure ! They are now so slow that they can be all killed before leaving the AA area.), you will probably deal less damage.Dogfight expert with 10% extra ammo is now welcome, even if it could permit USN to be more stupid in AS configurations (stupid, still more boring and annoying).Emergency takeoff: +100 of aircraft service time underfire ? Since you shouldn't be in fire range, this skill is useless. It would just give you the impression to defend yourself (while you still can't and waste some points). Plus, the ancient perk still useless (tailgunner expert ? ...) Well, as usual you can ave great results on CVs game, it wouldn't mean it was fun (excepting for monkeys thinking than only winning is fun). Now, excepting CVs, let's see ?RDF ? Let's kill more skilled gameplay and promote noobish one. Skilled players would be even able to abuse of it. So... very very bad new perk. Even if devs want to see invisifire disappear next year... well yeah i'm for it too, I would be fine with more face to face and fair engagements, but not like this ! In general, even if WG already stated that WoWs is focused on arcade and not meant to be competitive few months ago, i'm not agree with having a game designed for monkeys (and by monkeys for some decisions...).I would prefer to see some real choices to do, especially when plying battleships (splitting AA and secondaries build). It's some [edited]to give everything and permit to do not do any choice. The new perks system will still give BBies more efficiency while nerfing DDs and CAs in general (CAs that are already not in a good shape actually).HEAP sounds interesting, but it would have some sense if there is low limit cap of fire chance of 1%. With HEAP, Akizuki drop to a 0.0% chance of fire, making the ship useless, the damage of HE shells remain too low to being considered. On some certain cruisers, this skill sounds really promising.
  12. 1) Bot CVs in both side when there isn't enough CV players, i agree, they are an important part of the game, and even if AIs are bad, at least they could provide a LoS, good forboth team. 2) Removing fighters completely ? I'm not really fan about it, while I Hate AS setup, which are boring, not really usefull, uninteresting and even not rewardful, plus, removing them from game would make CVs sniping each other more often, which is stupid and not fun at all, and unrealisitc in most of battle where CVs stay alone, while a carrier should never be alone, fighters are mandatory for self defense.... I can't see any carrier without fighters, but some changes would be at least needed: -Remove or rework strafing (I was even thinking to remove auto attack from fighters, and only use strafe, at least, it would be totally unrealistic, but skillful and even interesting to watch and play, but i suppose this solution would not be good for anybody). -Let have Air parity between all nations. -Reduce spotting range from planes in general against DDs (or reducing air concealment for destroyers by 40-50%, i don't like the actual fact to find easily and permaspot DDs). But i would admit this would change the game and make it more interesting.
  13. Cruisers are doing fine only if you play like a coward, behind an island or into a smoke, that is bad design, not fun, [edited]. They should remove citadels on cruisers, or put it totally underwater. Face to face battle with angle mechanics is good, playing coward, and being able to delete a ship cause of citadels not.
  14. Good post @ishiro32 , as usual
  15. Indeed we will see Fighters setups only in competitive games: -AA is too powerful atm, so CVs can't just damage nothing. -Fighters can provide vision and keep air safe. -In competitive game, no cares about damage, cause we do not gain money or exp, the only important fact is that the team wins. Out of competitive games, CVs is just boring to play atm as support, cause there is no point to support a team full of [edited]or solo idiots.