Jump to content


Weekend Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About rvfharrier

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

864 profile views
  1. Very harsh in match TK penalty

    It's good that in this case it was an accident which you apologized for and the torpedo-ee accepted, but the system is in place to punish deliberate teamkillers just as much as it is to deter carelessness. Given that the automated system has no way to distinguish between the two, it's better to excessively punish the latter than to be too lenient to the former. At the end of the day accidental torpedoes are 100% avoidable and can have a huge negative impact on the teammate on the receiving end of them, they're something which should be heavily dissuaded with harsh punishments. If this is your first offence then it won't take long to undo and you'll hopefully be much more careful in future, if this isn't your first offence then you clearly haven't learned and is evidence for the need for harsh and upscaling punishments.
  2. Devastating Strike not being awarded correctly

    I don't claim to understand it fully, but I've always thought that a Dev Strike was awarded based on the timing between when two or more salvos, that result either directly or indirectly (flooding, fire etc) in the ship's death, were fired rather than on when they hit or when the target dies. It took 3 torps for the kill and the Kamikaze fires in groups of two, was there perhaps a gap of a few seconds between the launching of all the torps involved in the kill? Same as with the Yuro video, likely that the gap between the two volleys was just too long for the first to still be considered by the system as part of a Dev Strike. That's how I've understood it at least and it seems to fit with my experience. Could be entirely wrong though of course!
  3. Ideas for Cruiser/Battleship Rebalancing

    The problem with tweaking is that it simply won't be enough. Any balance overhauls large enough to result in a significant enough exodus of BB players to cruisers will do more harm than good to the health of the game, anything small enough to not damage the balance will do next to nothing to affect the class populations. Fully agreed with @CleverViking that maps should be less open and BBs should be able to deal more damage to each other, but these are things that should be implemented in addition to a fix for the BB overpopulation. I don't see how they can be the solution. At the risk of sounding like a broken record I honestly think the only solution to be found is in the MM and soft-caps, clan battles should be a model in that regard. Disheartening to see that possibility downplayed by Conway in the other thread after the BB cap in CB gave so much hope :(.
  4. Where are all the cruisers at?

    You're arguing from the perspective of the status quo. BBs may seem stronger by virtue of being so over-represented in games where they almost always outnumber cruisers, but that wouldn't be an issue if the soft-caps were tweaked to flip it the other way around. Cruisers absolutely can do good damage to BBs, but with five BBs per side pitched against what's usually two or three cruisers there's simply too much to account for and keep track of for the cruisers to reasonably avoid exposing themselves to BB crossfire and focus. Lower the number of BBs, lower their influence, map coverage and their general ubiquity and cruisers will start to flourish. I'm hugely in favour of lowering the BB and DD cap to three per side and having their numbers replaced with cruisers, but I do sometimes wonder whether it would simply make it too easy for the BBs in randoms to be withered and melted. Would have to see. Why not? What more iconic class of warship has existed in history to the majority of people? I first started this game, all the way back before closed beta, playing purely BBs. Not because they were 'OP' or 'easy' but because they were the ships that had fascinated me when I read up on naval history, they were the embodiment of naval power that I wanted to be at the helm of. I can see perfectly well how that can be the case for many others. Either way, by your logic increasing the effort required you'd see players gravitate away from BBs. With fewer of them in a match their collective survivability would be lowered and more responsibility would be on them to perform.
  5. Worcester - broken promise?

    Having just finished the Mogami, and so smokeless/short-ranged T10 (as far as average MM is concerned) CL experience fresh in mind, there's nothing inherently unplayable or weak looking there. The range looks a little on the low side at first glance, but as a T10 cruiser it will have access to the range upgrade which will push its range out to 17km. For 152s that seems adequate as you probably won't be hitting much beyond that range anyway. Looks like a challenging but rewarding DPM monster, although there's still a lot we don't know.
  6. stuck on island

    Remove it? No thanks, wouldn't trade this memory for the world. Celebrate that you were able to fail so spectacularly in a way not many will ever achieve. And look on the bright side, at least you didn't get stuck in a cyclone!
  7. German premium ships candidates

    Schleswig-Holstein at T2. As the ship that fired the first shots of WW2 it'd have a strong historical significance and, let's face it, the Mikasa has been ruling the roost far too long!
  8. Wide spread torpedoes

    Never use widespread, no. Even blind torping DDs in smoke I'd rather run the risk of torping the wrong part of the smoke screen but present the enemy DD with as little chance as possible to fit between the torps if I do happen to find him. Better that than a flat low chance to hit.
  9. Are secondary builds still viable?

    Unfortunately I'm not sure they are, and I say it with great sadness because my old secondary-build Scharnhorst was possibly the most fun I've had in this game. High tier BBs without FP and other survival/stealth skills you need to drop in order to enable a secondary build are simply too vulnerable these days when played in a manner that would actually justify having the secondary build to begin with. The skills which you'd need to have a chance to make it work are precisely the ones you need to drop! While a secondary build could come into its own in the later stages of some games, I just don't see it being nearly useful enough often enough to make up for the lack of survivability and concealment that you'd suffer in every part of every game. Might still be a niche for it at T7, but T8 and beyond I don't think they're viable no.
  10. Target Aquisition Mod vs Concealment Mod

    There's not a single ship that I'd mount the target acquisition mod onto, concealment is simply too important. The tiny handful of ships that don't have Concealment Mod 1 have got Steering Gears Mod 3 instead.
  11. Can't think of a reason, no. Frankly, less insulting and stat-shaming on the forums with your absence would actually be welcome.
  12. yamato secondary build?

    The minor and situational advantages offered are just too heavily offset by what you'd have to give up. To get AFT and MS you're basically giving up CE and FP, skills that would be far more useful far more often in tier 10 games where you'll be heavily punished for lacking them. The playstyle that you'll encourage yourself to adopt in order to use your secondaries combined with an unstealthy, non-survival build is unfortunately a recipe for disaster in a T10 BB.
  13. Commander Kappa

    As someone who very recently canceled a long-standing Amazon prime subscription and so can't do a free trial, is there no free way to get this loot? :(
  14. What is the BB meta?

    The refit the Scharnhorsts were due to undergo in order to receive the 15" guns also involved lengthening the hull, hence Gneis being longer ingame than Scharnhorst and why it's a little faster.
  15. now wows has turned into wot

    Steamrolls have unfortunately always been a thing, they haven't started popping up in only the last few months. It's just what sometimes happens with a totally random MM.