Jump to content


Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About zgrssd

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia
  1. Carrier appears to be notoriously hard to balance. I have some ideas what the issues with this class are. But no concrete idea what to change to balance them. It is not quite that the carrier are to weak or to strong. It is that they are either way too strong or way to weak, never quite right. Thier delta of usefullnes is too wide. It is never a close battle, it is a curb stomp for one side or the other. Excessively Unbalanced squadron counts: The Ruiyo has the choice to Have 1 Fighter, 2 of each bomber. Or 3 Fighter, one of each bomber. A total of 5 squadrons. The Independance has the Choice between 2 Fighters, 0 Torp Bombers, 1 Dive Bomber. Or 0 Fighters, 1 Torp Bomber, 2 Dive Bombers. A total of 3 Squadrons. And that Tier is not an aberation. None of the carrier layouts between nations are even remotely close. The difference between nations is too extreme. The difference between Strike and Fighter layout are too extreme. If combat is not close it is not fun for either side. If nations are not mirrored, one side has a clear and unstopably AA advantage. The other side has two choices: 1. Not start any Fliers at all. Why throw resources into a meatgrinder? I let Redcloak explain why they should do that. Nobody has any fun OR points this way, not the carrier being locked down, not the one doing the lockdown. 2. Hope the enemy has lapses of attention and you get some bombers through (but not back). Or maybe bait the enemy into allied AA. This is a waiting game. And it only works against a enemy that has never encountered it before. Too much impact: There is a limit of 2 carriers per side in random battles, 1 Carrier per team battle, 1 per Division. Carrier tiers are mirrored. Now the MM tries to mirror/split the Nations too. Those patches only try to work arond the real problem (terrible balance) without ever solving it. Next you would have to mirror airgroup layouts, module buildout and captain skills. Carriers simply have way to much impact on the course of a battle. And the only thing that can truly counter a carrier is another carrier. Cruisers can keep the enemy Airplanes out of a area, but they can not hunt them. Unless they find the carrier (so he has to attack) or the carier becomes desperate they will not get any plane kills. To much Tier dependance: Not only are carriers poorly balanced agaisnt each other (as evidenced by thier "only same tier" MM rule), they are balanced terribly against any other tier. A T4 carriers Airplanes can be shoot down easily even by a T6 Japanese destroyers AA. In turn the entire AA of my Bismark (T8) can shoot 2 minutes on a squad of T10 Bombers and maybe shoot one or two down. I can't attack anything 1 or 2 tiers higher then my carrier, while nothing 1 or 2 tiers lower can effectively defend agaisnt me. Again, not a close combat, not fun. There is naturally a clear advantage between Tiers. A T7 is stronger then a T5. The differences is more extreme between classes (like a DD fighting a Cruiser). But if one s a carrier that difference is too extreme. At least the T5 cruiser/BB/DD can still do some damage to the T7 cruiser/BB/DD. As a result AA values only say anything on the same tier. Dive Bombers are entirely random: Even with manually targetting - even when the enemy ship fills 75% of the target circle - 6 bombers still manage to miss a BB. You can attack from the bow or aft, but otherwise there is no skill with using these Bombers. The result is entirely random no mater how skilled you are. Rarely rolling and rolling with few dice is a terrible use of Random chance. The end result is guaranteed to be incredibly spiky (either totally awesome or totally terrible). And as Extra Credit thought me, a high Delta of Randomnoss is a incredibly bad idea for using randomness. And that is after we consider that Dive Bombers are very situational to begin with. Thier primary purpose is to attack cruiser, dd and the odd BB with weak deck armor. Damage to fliers is not transparent: How is damage distributed between fliers in a squad under fire? Do they get repaired during landings? How many HP do my airplanes still have? The result of any 2 squadrons of same nation, same Tier fighting seems entirely random. A 6v6 can end with 1 v 5 as end result after all ammo is spend. Is that due to previous damage to fighters? Because the damage is applied to a random target in the target squad anmd thus one loosing more fighters earlier putting it at a disadvantage? Combination of both? Damage not properly working for one squadron? Gremlings latchng onto the fighters mid-fight? How are we supposed to make a meaningfull decision if we do not even remotely know the HP of our squads?
  2. The Hood was a 40 year old cruiser. It had no deck armor. It was trimmed towards speed like most ships of it's time. The Bismark was a modern Battleship, but an odd design: Cruisers are designed/designated by the maxim: "Outrun anything you can't outgun, outgun anything you can't outrun". The Bismark was a BB designed like that. It was supposed to outgun any enemy Cruiser, and outrun any existing battleship. While also being fast enough ot (possibly) intercept trade convoys. The hood was outclasses by 4 decades. But it was also one of the few ships with the speed and position to catch the Bismark. There was never a real chance that Hood + Prince of Whales could destroy Prince Eugen+Bismark. It was 2 aging Cruisers vs 2 modern Battleships. But they did not need to kill them anyway: Bismark in particular was under standing orders not to engange anything that could damage it. Any damage could lower it's speed, making it vulnerable to be caught by battleships. It was there to disrupt trade and any damage could Yeopardize that mission - inlcuding the slightest. As a result they did not initially shoot back. Sea battles at the time were rarely fought to the death. Or fought at all. Bismark and Tirpitz in particular operated as "Fleet in being". They should not sink anything, just bind the British ships. And disrupte trade by being there and not really getting attacked. The goal of the british was to have a favorable exchange, not actually kill something. Light to medium damage was acceptable as the British had more ships and closer harbours in that area. Just getting the Bismark out of that sea was enough to counter it.
  3. XP is so far the best metric for performance. Asuming that metric itself is not skewed towarsd kills. Putting all the quests on the XP metric might just put too much strain on that one mechanic. I consider damage or "hit's" to be almost as bad as Kill quests. They entice players to seek sure hits, rather then role appropirate teamplay. Big problem is, it is really hard to put a proper "value" on Teamplay. The game can only focus on ingame events like hits, damage, damage blocked by armor. It can not measure intangible factors like the BB's guns threathening the Cruisers from advancing. Or DD having the enemy BB on the run. Or one front chasing the enemy (without hitting much)/binding the superior force, so the other side can win the game. Maybe if there was some kind of shared XP/damage based XP based on proxmity? That might allow stuff like "DD torpedo salvo misses, but forces cruiser to expose citadel to a allied BB" to be translated to XP and thus progress. I prefer to play low tiers in part because the ships are easier, less extreme. AP shells still mater a lot. Ranges are a lot shorter. The "getting sniped across the map" problem does not appear. For me Tier 1-4 is decidedly the better part of the game. But even there I feel that I am only winning because I am fighting beginners half the time. Even if I do perform good at kill quests, I feel shitty about it. 1) because the game forces me to focus on kills, rather then teamplay. Something I am actually good at. 2) because every kill after the 1st I make, means one ally that is no longer able to make any kills at all. I resent having kills almost as much as having a nearby ally take all the kills. 3) Because I often only perform that good on lower tiers, where I feel like I am only picking on weak/new players. Right now kill quests are a Lose (I get no kills)/Lose (I get kills, but feel annoyed)/Lose (if I get a lot of kills, I feel like a bad player). I agree "Kill in class" quests are better then "kill off class" quests. They still have one issue: Not every player is good with every type of ship. I am objectively terrible with BB. Shooting and killing enemies on 15-20km just is not my thing. Actually expecting a BB to make kills in the first place is a bad idea in itself. Getting the killing blow is pretty much based on doing a lot of damage events (so your's is "the one" that breaks the camles back). BB have a terrible Rate of Fire and they suffer even more from dispersion. So the designers expect them to play lottery, but they are only alowed 1/2 to 1/10 of the number of tickets as any other class using HE? No wonder BB restort to firing HE, the fire based DoT is the only way they have a remote chance to even make kills. BB's are not the only class with that issue. Any DD with focus on the Torps (long reload time; few guns and fire chance) has the same issue. Or any german Cruiser for that mater (clear AP focus over HE in damage numbers). Wich Multiplayer game designer would make a class being based on luck with random numbers (like the crit chance, to hit chance) but only few rolls? Randomness only even out after a lot of rolls:
  4. When the game was still young your development wisely steered away from the biggest cause of frustration I had in WoT: Kill quests. Kill X enemies. Kill X enemies in one battle. Do Y and then kill X specific class of enemies in one battle. That kind of stuff. But now practically any Event mission is "kill X enemies". And it is driving me nuts. I am an average player. Win quota around 49-51% is average if I ever saw it. But my chances to actually land the killing blow appear to be around 5%. I literally just had a match where I was the 2nd best by XP. And I got 0 from 8 kills my team made. Palce 1+3 got 3 each. These kill quests don't favor casual or average players like me. They frustrate us to no end. They favor those that can memorise every ships armor or people that can figure out the upgrade state of ships just by looking at the HP bar. They favor those that already make most of the kills, even if they do not much for the team winning while racking them up. They force people to play egoistically (only looking for thier own highscore in kills). Killquests are the absolute opposite of teamplay in any Multiplayer or PvP game. Those that already make kill will finish them way to quickly to cause much interest. Average players like me get persistently kills taken on the last 1% HP even if we did 90% of the work. So we never make any progress even if we get into the top 5. I don't mind loosing or slow progress on some missions. But this crapis frustrating me straight out of the game. If I play with somebody else against bad odds and he get's all the kills I don't want to congratulate him for it. I hate him for blocking me any chance of progress. For progress in a quest he propably already finished anyway. While this game is not pay to win, it appears to be on the straight track to cater to the "kill whales". Wich are propably also the people spending the most money on the game (income whales). And that path is a death sentences for F2P games: The results will be the same: Kill Whales blaze through the content (like kill quests) way to fast to keep them interested. Personal score becomes more important then teamplay or fun for both sides. Average player just get frustrated out of the game. Average players are part of the content for the kill whales (indeed that is how I always understood F2P to work since I started it with SWTOR). So they too leave the game. You were on such a good track regarding engagement with the Daily Challenges (after you added the reroll option). And with the improoved XP for Capping/defending/cap blocking. But the second you added kill quests for the longer missions you threw that all into the trash. You had avoided all icebergs on the northpole, only to suddenly turn around 180° because the captain got mad and suddenly wanted fresh norhtpole ice for his drink.
  5. zgrssd

    Cruiser Lines Wich is best

    The IJN line massively changes with the Furutaka's 203 mm guns. If you want ot choose for life, start with it. High calliber, low RoF these guns are good at shooting enemy Cruisers with AP. But those guns in addition to turncycles like some BB make them a lot more vulnerable to DD. At any point IJN has the worse AA, but the extra torpedoes can be quite usefull agaisnt BB that come to close. USN cruisers are better at the AA and Anti DD roles of a Cruiser. They feature a very high rate of fire vs ships, but AP ammo is generally not worth it with thier small callibers.
  6. I wanted to write my own more abstract and generalized guide. Thought it might fit here too. X vs X, Y vs Y: You should generall avoid a fight against your own class. Unless there is nothing better around, you have a tactical/tier/numerical advantage or you are just the only one that can fight the target. Fighting any ship with it's own class 1-on-1 will at best give you a 50% chance to win. Even if you win, it will propably cost you a lot of HP and time. And you might fare a lot worse then that. Often the best way to win is to pave the way for your allies wich have ships better suited for the situation, by destroying thier counters, scouting or shielding for them. Cruisers: Cruisers vs Cruisers: Depends on the Cruisers involved. Cruisers show a lot more variance in armor and armament then any other class. In general you are better off protecting your BB while they deal with them. But if you got one extreme (good at range or good at melee) and can use it, you might be able to win. Cruisers vs BB: Your nightmare. The BB have better range and it's shells are alot more likely to hit your weak deckside armor. A salvo plunging into your citadel might one shoot you. If you can get closer (but outside secondary range) the fight is a bit more in your favor, but still not favorable.. Otherwise clear the way for DD and carriers strikes against them. Cruisers vs DD: DD are your prey. You outgun them, can usually keep up with them and are too maneuverable to be a easy torpedo target. Cruisers vs Carrier: If you are in range they fear you because of your high rate of fire and good AA. If you are near an ally, your good AA might totally deter them or at least cost them a lot of planes. Battleships: BB vs Cruisers: Consider them your prey. The goal is to reach that sweet spot where you guns hit reliably (ideally into the deck armor) but they have issues hitting you in turn. Against some very weakly armored ones, even your secodnaries can help. But against others getting close is a bad idea due to torpedoes. BB vs BB: You should better focus on cruisers, to pave the way for your DD and Carrier to make torpedo runs on them. BB are a lot more Uniformly then Cruisers. BB vs DD: They are your hunters. You will learn to hate thier torpedoes, maneuverability and stealth. While a single HE salvo for your mains could effortlessly one-shoot them, your chance to hit them are slim. Your best offense are your secondaries, but a good DD captain will just stay out of sight or range. BB vs CV: They are your hunters too. Thier torpedo bombers in particular will cause a lot of damage. Unless someone else spots them for you, you are generally in a very bad position to hunt them. Destroyers: Destroyers are high risk, high reward units. They are a lot more dependant on enemy mistakes or your allies making an opening for you. DD vs Cruisers: You really don't want to fight this fight. About the only contact you should have to them is sight contact, so your heavier units can shell them. DD vs DD: Destroyers mix the role between Torpedoboat and Torpedoboat-destroyer in one unit. Any given ship might be more on one or the other end of that spectrum. That should let you decide if you want this combat or not. In any case being spotted is bad, as it open you to fire from other ships DD vs BB: Prey. But mind thier secondaries, they can quickly sink you. DD vs CV: Another prey, but with caveeats. Nothing can sink a lone Carrier as quickly as DD that snuck past the enemy line. Thier secondaries and figthers barely mater in most cases. In turn nothing can ruin a DD's day as much as a Carrier that keeps spotting him with fighters. Carriers: As a rule of thumb the carrier is able to counter all other ships (to a degree) as long as they themself stay out of range/sight In turn a carrier in melee is outgunned by anything - even another carrier with more secondaries! When picking targets don't forget to account for the AA value. Just because you are good at hitting something, does not mean you should attack it in the middle of a AA blob. Carrier vs Cruiser: Unless they limit thier own maneuvering ability, torpedoes are often a bad idea and wasted on them. Divebombers in turn exploit thier weak Deck Armor. They also tend to have the best AA of any fleet. Carrier vs BB: A lone BB is your prey. As are BB's with not too much AA cover. Carrier vs DD: If you manage to spot them, you utterly ruin thier days and you can leave killing them to your allies. If they maange to get in close and you have no cover, they utterly ruin your day in turn. Dive Bombers have a marginal chance to hit them. Torpedoes need one in a million hits for that feat. Carrier vs Carrier: You can roughly split carriers into 2 roles: AA Carrier (Fighters) and Strike Carriers (Bombers). Strike vs Strike and AA vs AA usually means no direct fight takes place. Strike Carriers best bet against AA carriers is to hit them hard and surprisingly while the fighters are away and hope to sink them in 1 fell swoop. AA Carriers best bet agaisnt strike is to protect the allies with fighters and guard the most likely vector for a sneak attack. Nations and Ships: America in general has a lot better AA (pearl harbour sends it's regards), but at the cost of topredoes. Japan has a lot more and better torpedoes, but the AA and anti DD capabilities are lacking. First 2 Japanese BB and American Carriers are pretty darn bad. Don't let that disuade you, the 3rd is a lot better. US has the better AA Carriers, while Japanese have the better Strike Carriers. America DD are closer at cruisers then classical Torpedo boats - strong AA, a lot of guns. But in turn torpedoes are not that good. Japanese Cruisers generally carry torpedoes. Starting with Tier V they get the 203 mm gun wich changes how they operate. As a result they loose a lot of power against Destroyers (slow reload, turn like a BB), but in turn are a lot more deadly against other Cruisers (load AP). They operate closer to BB with torpedoes then classical Cruisers. American Cruisers sport very high rates of fire. Since they also have low callibers, using HE shells is often a better idea to burn the enemy out. They are also the class with the most AA so far. US BB have a lot better AA, while Japanese ones have better range. Tirpitz: The Tirpitz and Bismark were designed as Cruiser hunter and commerce raiders. In many ways the Tirpitz operates more like a overgrown japanese Cruiser then a classical BB: Weak deck armor, fast tracking turrets, decent speed, torpedoes. It has to avoid long range duells with other BB, but if it can get in close it should be able to win. And it is even better suited at killing cruisers then most other BB.
  7. I agree the Carrier/Airplane worth needs to be reworked. The issue is finding some way that deals with the escalating Plane count. T4 carriers have <30 Planes. T8 have >200 to cope with the escalating amount of AA. The biggest danger is BB's getting XP for being attacked by CV's, simply because thier flak is doing it's work. Carriers behave totally differently from all other ships: A Carrier with 10 HP but full complement is still as dangerous as it ever was. If the team is good at protecting it, it might never get under fire again and can attack with impunity. A Carrier with full HP but 0 bombers is less valuable then an ally already on the bottom of the ocean. Because that one at last won't give the enemy more points on being killed. It should be worth next to nothing to "put him out of his misery". If I shoot down half the attack planes of the carrier, I just took out half it's combat ability. As sure as if I had taken out half of a BB's HP. All other ships have a XP/money worth based upon/split over the HP. Some ideas: Rather then split the carriers XP worth over it's HP, split it over the planes. You could go as far as making the plane count the HP of the carrier. HE shell hits would have a chance of destorying planes in the reserve. Altnertively cap the "reseve planes" count based on HP loss.
  8. zgrssd

    Daily missions

    Alterantively, give us a way to DROP a mission. It may still have the normal time to get a new mission isntead. But that would still get us a solveable mission faster then being stuck with something forever. How about a weekly reset of missions? Currently I am stuck with 3 AA missions. Two of wich are carrier only and my best AA ship has a rating of 19. The rest is 0 too <10.
  9. zgrssd

    Target Acquistion System Mod. 1

    Anyone that sees the enemy is on a straight course in your direction. The Torps may only have a range of 15km, but if the enemy drives into them it is still a hit. And you might still hit any unseen Cruiser or DD by pure chance. Just don't hit allies.
  10. zgrssd

    Myogi VS Wyoming

    The first two Japanese BB's are just terrible. Magicarp Nationality. The Kawachi combines a range the St. Loius laughs about with the maneuverability of a pregnant lead brick. It's a cruiser bruiser that must hope for the enemy cruiser to come to close, because it can not possibly catch up to them. I only grind the thing in bot-games. As you found out, the myogy lacks number of guns. If you can get the enemy BB to chase you, you are in a good position because effectively you have more guns then he then. Remember to not run too far, as he migh consider just going somepalce else if you outrange him. Actually you should never try to counter a ship the the same ship or even same class. BB's are countered by DD's first (no ability to dodge torps and to slow reload for guns). BB's counter cruisers most (better range and firepower, more durability). Cruisers counter DD's (high RoF, to mobile as torp target). Exceptions in specific tiers do not invalidate this fast rule. CV's counter everything when at range and are countered by everything in a melee (even a CV with more secondaries). In short: When you don't have a choice, consider yourself a distracting target to the enemy BB's while allies get in torp hits or the cruisers burn them to a crisp. If you can, fight cruisers 1 on 1.
  11. zgrssd

    Clemson cannon upgrade (MK14)

    Nice theory. Except that only works AFTER you researched and mounted them. That is when I don't really need that info anymore. Information I can only get via trial and error is information I lack. For upgrades you have not researched and bought, all you can do is use the tooltip. Wich for odd reasons lacks the ability to expand the list of guns. I don't own the Clemson, but a friend of mine asked himself the exact same question. Upgrades for guns are a lot more complex then in WoT, as you can change the calliber, number per turret, turn rate and possible number of turrets and half a dozen other factors. It is more like upgrading a turret + gun in WoT then a gun in WoT.
  12. zgrssd

    Destroyers and torp lead indicators

    The indicator is perfect. For the speed and course of the target at time of LAUNCH. The real issue is that torpedoes need pretty long to actually get to the target, so those values will propably change until then. Even if the damage and reload time is slower, a faster torpedo will be so much better at actually landing a hit. If the target is a lone BB or CV that has not seen you, it will propably stay on that course. Those two are the only thing you can reliably torp on long range. Those are also your primary targets as DD. vs Cruisers and especially DD's you need to be very close, fast torpedoes, a good spread and a very good guess of the enemy maneuver. And even then a hit is more luck then skill. Use your guns on this distance. With torps you actually have to predict the other players actions/reactions more then his ships course. I think I am somewhat good at predicting enemy maneuvers so that thier dodge attempt land them right in my torps. Sometimes. My torpedo hit ratio is 5%. They don't hit often, but when they do they do a lot of damage. Also note that: - US DD's are more powerfull with thier guns - think of them as DD hunters first, BB & CV hunters second. - on Cruisers, don't try to use the torps. Use the guns. If you happen to be in a position where you can fire the torps, lucky you. But the second you try to get into torp position you get taken appart. - Jap DD's do have guns. They ain't good but if the enemy already sees you or it's a CV pump them full of HE while your torps reload/you are getting in a run position.
  13. Recently I am having slight issues with the patcher and doing other stuff in internet while it runs in background. If I have "use torrents" enabeled. If I run the patcher (non-torrent) in background I can still use team speak and play an online game (in this case Star Wars old Republic) with under 200 ms lag. This is ideal as I can update while doing other stuff. Now the second I enable torrent mode that no longer applies. Instead the following happens: - Team speak becomes barely understandable. Not a total breakup, but definitely a limitation of the useable bandwith. - Online games can have no connection for seconds or even minutes. It is almost as bad as if I had a total internet breakup. There is just barely enough data going through for the game not to determine a "disconnect", not nearly enough for playing. - in rare cases the Torrent session is never even initialised. This applies to the Wolrd of Warships and World of Tanks launcher/patcher. I have two guesses: - the Torrent mode tries to open too many connections for my Router/ISP. - the torrent connections have a too high priority for stuff like Quality of Service prioritizing. I can live with patching via the server only, but this is something that might be worth looking into.