Procrastes

Beta Tester
  • Content count

    1,281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1355

1 Follower

About Procrastes

  • Rank
    Midshipman
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile Procrastes

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

230 profile views
  1. The HMS Gallant in three words: A good all-rounder! She can perform most destroyer duties well, which in itself recommends her in my book. But there is one area where she excels over any other destroyer in the game: Her single shot torpedoes. With the proper aim, and assuming that the target doesn't change course at random, these torpedoes hit with unparalleled force.
  2. All hail the Mighty Bismarck! You are correct, of course. Even so, I am still going to wait and see how this turns out, before crying wolf. Defensive AA and Hydro consumables, for all cruisers? Hmmm... as far as general ship class buffs go, that's an interesting thought. But I have to confess, I have absolutely no idea what effects that would have on the overall game balance!
  3. Whatever else deepwater torpedoes might do, they bring new options for destroyer captains. This is a welcome thing, in my book!
  4. I agree that cruisers aren't really in need of a nerf. But if the Buddha played this game, he'd probably advice us to wait and see how this turns out, before getting bloody annoyed. Me, I think that the ones who will be hit the most by deepwater torpedoes (see what I did, there?) are those who stick to the old "always sail in straight lines-doctrine"; the rest of the cruiser and battleship population will keep calm and carry on - in zig-zag, as it were. Also, a judicious use of hydroacoustics will probably be more useful than before, which might give cruisers a bit of an edge. In the best case scenario, deepwater torpedoes will bring added diversity to the game, without overly punishing any single ship class too much. This is what I am hoping for. But if your fears come true, and cruisers get sucker-punched, I'll help you hoist the flag of Bloodied Annoyance!
  5. I believe that relevant game mechanics are best introduced on tiers II-IV; that's where you learn the ropes. Having to learn new and tricky stuff at higher tiers is unfair to the noob as well as to his team mates. That's the main reason why I consider the removal of the Alt attack option for carriers on tiers IV and V to be fundamentally wrong. As for historical accuracy, it must always take second row to game balance. So if the new Pan-Asian destroyers are going to have deepwater torpedoes, they should all have deepwater torpedoes.
  6. Having torpedoes that can't hit other destroyers will probably be a major drawback in any destroyer duels; mostly due to psychology. It's not that you are actually hit by torpedoes all that often, but the threat of it, that factors in those duels. If I can engage an enemy destroyer at close range and have absolutely no fear of getting torpedoed by him, that's a huge advantage for me. I can focus on gunning him down without having to do that whole torpedo beat thing. Him? Not so much.
  7. Maybe we could have the option to go back to port, when that cyclone warning appears? Because that would be the obvious thing to do.
  8. You made me laugh, Sir! A good way to start the day! On the subject, though, I can't really say I care much for cyclones in the game. They are supposed to introduce an element of chance by changing the tactical situation, forcing the players to adapt. This sounds like a good thing in theory, and in the best scenario - where your team instantly responds and coordinates - it can work out that way. But the usual response is for the battle to grind to a slow halt, with everyone driving around at half speed waiting for visibility to return, hoping that their guns will be pointed in the right direction if they happen to run into an enemy. At least that's my own experience so far. About the only time I've ever been able to get something positive out of a cyclone, was when I, in my Tirpitz, had the good fortune of bumping into an enemy Atago at 8 km range, sinking him with a single volley before he even got his torpedoes away*. But 80 seconds later I was sunk myself from almost full hit points by torpedo planes I couldn't see before they were right on top of me, so it all goes around. If cyclones were rarer, they might not be so annoying.** But they seem to creep up rather frequently; or is it just my imagination? *So I guess that makes me the Battleship Fairy? If that was you in that cruiser, Aragathor, please accept my apologies! **Quote from just about anyone down in the Caribbean, I'm sure.
  9. I'm sorry if I've come across as dismissive or ignorant, that was not my intention. Here are my main arguments for not thinking the Giulio Cesare overpowered. Her strengths She is fast and manoeuvrable, and she has a very small detection range, for a battleship. This will let her dictate the range and duration of many engagements. She's got ten guns in well-placed turrets, that can all bring to bear against the same target. This is enough to play the RNG game successfully; a well-aimed volley is quite likely to do good damage. Her weaknesses She is somewhat squishy for a battleship. In a straight-up one on one fight versus, say, a König, and all else being equal, my money would be on the König. She doesn't have any kind of trick to use against destroyers,* such as strong secondaries or a spotter/fighter plane. On top of that comes her somewhat subpar torpedo protection. Her AA is too weak to offer protection against determined carrier attacks. Her manoeuvrability helps, but only gets her so far. If she gets focused by a carrier, and is on her own, she's toast. Summary The Giulio Cesare is, in my opinion, a well balanced premium. Her weaknesses balance out her strengths rather nicely, while still leaving her as one of the more flexible - perhaps the most flexible - battleships of her tier. Her somewhat weak armour means that proper angling and positioning is necessary to fight other battleships successfully. Her vulnerability against carrier and destroyer attacks means that going off alone is a risky proposition, although her speed makes retreat a feasible option. In these regards she rewards skilful play but punishes mistakes, which is a good combination in an arcade game such as this. All in all, I would say that she's a strong, comfortable ship to play - but she's not overpowered. *Except for the cunning trick of loading HE and blasting them to smithereens. That never gets old.
  10. I grant you that it is your definition, at least. And by that definition, every ship except the ones with exactly 50 % winrate could be said to be either over- or underpowered. I retain a somewhat less rigid definition of these terms for my personal use. Power creep is a lamentable reality in this game, you're right about that. But I find it hard to see how it could reasonably be hoped to be avoided, given that this is a free-to-play game in constant development. Wargaming has to make money, and they do this by introducing new game content and putting out more stuff for sale. They have to keep their customers - us - on our toes, eager to get hold of all the new shiny stuff. This won't happen unless they can offer something new and different now and then. Power creep probably can't be avoided altogether under such circumstances, but the trick is to keep it under control, so that the old lines remain fun and playable. Wargaming has managed to do this rather well so far, in my opinion. But I think you're right about the New York. She looks dead in the water. Anyone who would think of getting her would rather get the Texas anyway, and the only thing the Texas has to recommend herself nowadays is the AA suite. Otherwise most people would probably rather go German or Italian, at this stage.
  11. Man, that's sad. I almost feel sorry for the poor sap. I guess he must have been high on adrenaline, not thinking clearly, and assumed he was spotted by you when you opened fire and showed up on his screen. But a second time...? Wow. His dead team members must have had a fit in he game chat. Well played on your part, though! You secured a victory for your team by playing on the weaknesses of your enemy. It shows, among other things, that psychological warfare is very much a part of the WoWs experience! Thanks for contributing to the topic!
  12. And this illustrates rather well why winrate is a somewhat less than perfect measurement of personal skill. I can tell you this much, that I have played much better, individually, in my Giulio Cesare than in my König, for the very simple reason that I am a better player now than when I first got the König. Yet this does not show in the winrate, because most of my battles in the Giulio Cesare - few as they are - have resulted in losses. If I do well in a battle but the team loses, my winrate drops. If I play badly but my team wins, my winrate improves. In neither of these situations does the change to my winrate have anything to say about my personal level of skill. The effect of a single player's performance in a battle is dependent on so many other variables - including chance - that one needs a very large number of battles indeed to be able to base any serious evaluations on bare statistics. And yet people continue tossing each others' stats around as if they were some absolute measurement, akin to the scales of Maat. It's outright funny at times. As for the reference to the ship statistics for the past two months, I don't doubt that they are correct. Whenever a new ship is released, it is rather likely to get a good start, winrate-wise. One reason for this is that a large number of very experienced players will try out the new ship in a comparatively large number of battles - in the short term, at least. As the hype settles, a normalization is likely to occur. Lastly, I feel that there has been a tendency to cry "OP" in the forums a lot lately. As soon as a new ship arrives and performs better than average, shouts of it being overpowered will pop up all over the place. The definition of what is overpowered and what is not is of course subjective, and in the end a matter of personal opinion - but the term has seen such overuse that it is beginning to lose it's sting.
  13. Well, that's a comfort then. To be honest, I seldom bother about my stats. Although, to be clear, I never claimed to be any good at this, I was merely talking about improvement. My ambition so far, is to someday rise above the level of "barely competent".
  14. Yours is a commendably humble attitude, Sir! Incidentally, I feel much the same way about the Giulio Cesare. I'd begun to attribute this to personal skill, and I have been congratulating myself on finally getting a bit ahead as a virtual sea captain, but reading what you wrote... no, no, I'm probably still stuck at scrub level. What was I thinking? But I am having fun!
  15. Thanks again for all the great feedback and kind words, fellows! It's been a blast to follow the discussion!