rvfharrier

Weekend Tester
  • Content count

    340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2625

1 Follower

About rvfharrier

Recent Profile Visitors

173 profile views
  1. The meta isn't caused mainly by ships and game mechanics, even if these do play a part; it's caused by players and MM. As has already been pointed out, BBs are, overall, the easiest class to play to a minimum standard but they're also the class that will be subject to the most fire if they push. Attractiveness of a class to less-skilled players is an awful combination with the expectancy to tank a lot of damage and be in the middle of the action, resulting in a lot of camping and sniping BBs. Now factor in that the MM very often allows for five BBs to be on each side and you force passive play from the cruisers who simply can't focus on and angle against all threats because there's too many of them. Result? Camping, passive gameplay. RN BBs will change nothing of the above. If anything it may* actually improve it. If they're slightly harder to do well in then you may find slightly better players in them who may be willing to play them in a more aggressive manner. It still does very little good for the cruisers though. * Almost certainly not, however.
  2. This for me is a far bigger issue than the actual balancing between BBs and CAs/CLs which I would say is generally fine, especially at tier 10. Bring BBs down to three per side and the issues with cruisers largely disappear. Cruisers should never be outnumbered by BBs in the MM, yet we see it happen almost every game.
  3. It literally quantifies something that even highly experienced players are merely estimating. Anyone can stand to gain an advantage from it. I didn't even know there was a speed one until I saw it mentioned here, that's even worse for me if the two can be combined.
  4. For me it crosses a line into giving a player an unfair advantage, really not a fan of it and genuinely surprised that WG deemed it legal.
  5. cv

    You earn XP for damage done as a proportion of the enemy ship's health, not by the absolute amount. You also receive XP for landing the killing blow. In the Fuso you got a devastating strike and two kills at Tier 6 with a high calibre (indicating damage done was at least 30% of the enemy team's total health), your Essex game was only a little higher in total damage output but lower relative to the total health of the enemy team with one less kill. I also stand to be corrected on this last one but I don't think there's any XP bonus for surviving is there? I fully agree that carriers should earn more XP for shooting down planes, however.
  6. I'm actually not a potato and I can conclusively prove it: Only good players run premium right? Roll out this special MM! Seriously....
  7. Short and undetailed answer: No. Having money and being good at a game are two different things, not sure where this idea that players with premium time are better than those that play for free comes from.
  8. DD torpedoes are a very inconsistent way of doing damage, even if it doesn't feel like it when you eat three or four of them, and DDs rely on their stealth to survive as they have no armour and very little HP. Nerfing torpedo damage and/or stealth will be game breaking for them as a class, especially at higher tiers. The Kamikaze you cited as an individual ship is pretty OP, but that's a balancing issue with the ship rather than with DDs as a whole. As for your suggestion of nerfing torp damage by 5k, think of the poor Sampson who you would see left with 900 damage torps before accounting for torpedo protection. Carriers are a class in crisis at the moment. Top tier and in the hands of a skilled player they can almost single handedly decide games and are incredibly strong, bottom tier or in the hands of a lesser skilled player and they struggle to even be relevant. The skill gap/ceiling on them is huge and their reliance on MM is more so than any other class. WG has promised a rework on them for a long time now but without results or even indication of progress. There's certainly a historical precedent for them being strong, but not many are happy with the way they're currently implemented regardless of which side of the debate they're on. For the record, carriers aren't actually able to drop that close to ships. The arming distance on air-dropped torps is quite large and it's not uncommon to see carriers misjudging it. Nothing like watching a ship absolutely dead to rights only for none of the torps to arm and for four or five torps to bounce harmlessly off the hull!
  9. She would be limited to being a long range HE spammer if not for her smoke and general excellence! Assuming you've checked for radar ships and German DDs/Lo Yangs, of course, you can smoke up pretty much anywhere on the map and spew forth fire and fury without much worry other than the occasional blind fire into the smoke which can be countered by a little bit of moving around. Twice the fire rate and an easier time keeping all turrets on target is a better recipe for both BB BBQ and for brawling with AP in the mid-late game I find. The heal of the Atago also comes very much in handy for that point in the game, but the Kutozov as an all-round package is simply the better cruiser for me. Nothing bad to say about the Atago, love that ship as well, but the Kutuzov is quite frankly monstrously OP.
  10. It would be the ultimate Tier 8 cruiser if it didn't have the unfortunate handicap of not being Russian. Very hard to give that title to anything but the Kutuzov which is more than Russian enough to take the top spot.
  11. That's not actual footage of the Sheffield being hit, that's footage of a test.
  12. Fire didn't actually sink the Sheffield, it sank several days later due to flooding under tow. To the OP. Is fire damage OP? No. Are some specific ships which dish out huge amounts of fire damage OP? Sure. That's a balancing issue for individual ships though rather than the mechanic itself. Health in this game doesn't represent a ship's structural and watertight integrity. Health in this game broadly represents a ship's overall ability to remain in the fight, not to remain afloat. Fire doesn't sink ships, but it severely degrades their ability to remain fighting to the extent that many times throughout history ships that have been ravaged by uncontrollable fires were forced to be abandoned, often to be sunk later by friendly forces. A ship that was mission killed, but still afloat, in real life has to be represented in-game as having sunk due to a lack of an ultra-realistic simulation style alternative. Sinking by fire in that sense is perfectly reasonable, unless you'd be willing to spend hours trying to get your ship towed back to port while being unable to shoot!
  13. It was a loss :p.
  14. Quite a long time ago. Can't remember exactly when, over a year ago. It used to be a pretty poor ship good only for flinging HE, but I believe it's since been made more accurate and been given longer range to now be viable.
  15. It's much better now, I'd say go for it. Good sealcubber ship to play for fun. AP is viable now, with HE as strong as it always was, and it looks great!