Jump to content

ArkRoyal_R09

Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2493
  • Clan

    [TDD]

About ArkRoyal_R09

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Birthday 08/29/1995
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

280 profile views
  1. ArkRoyal_R09

    Update 0.8.0.3

    I don’t often post on the forums, but I really feel like I need to at this point. (Prepare for a long one, sorry) I am so disappointed and fed up with this rework. I played the old RTS style and while I’ll admit It wasn’t really balanced and I probably wasn’t any good with it but, I had a reasonable amount of fun while playing them. Some games I’d get stomped and couldn’t get a decent strike off and others I’d get a decent score. But I had FUN!!!!! I understood that you (WG) wanted to rework the design of the carriers due to lack of players and difficultly in learning the class due to the uniqueness of the playstyle. I also get that since it was RTS gameplay a lot of people just weren’t interested, that’s OK people can like and dislike what they want. However, you did NOTHING to help players understand the gameplay of carriers since their introduction for the very beginning of world of warships. AA mechanics were poorly explained and heavily based on RNG, so it was really an all or nothing affair when it came to shoot down planes. A lot of these factors lead to the CV population to decline until only those who were exceptionally good stayed and new people sometime tried them out only to be quickly stomped over by the experienced ones. It also led to the general player base no considering carriers a part of the game due to not seeing them for some time 30 games. Leading to few AA spec’d builds which then caused carriers to walk all over ships. Upon hearing about the upcoming CV rework that had been teased for such a long time, I was admittedly sad to see the old style to go but understood the need to rework them and was hopeful of what it could turn out to be. I was Lucky to get into the very first round of the closed Beta test for the rework. I played a few games and had quite a positive experience I wrote in my feedback that somethings could better (i.e. manual control of the CV, use of carrier-based consumables, the ability to swap from Planes to Carrier and then back to the same squadron) now I’ll be fair some of them can sound extremely strong and if left exactly how they used to function then yes they are but, ideas were floated around by some CC’s about how this could be added without making it too much of a problem for the general players. When the carriers were released in 0.8.0 ALL players were asked to accept they may not be well balanced but to bear with it and changes would be as quick as possible. True to your word hotfixes were reasonable fast but to the complete and utter detriment the the carrier game play. Now you tell us CV players that we need to wait for up to 4 full patches for some sort of "balancing" the repair costs have not bee looked at. I can lose a stack of credits because the AA is so strong that I can loose the full 9 squadron and you tell me I need to wait while DDs and CA/CL have been allowed to have some very strong and impactful buffs I'm sometimes lucky to break the 30K damage and stealth AA cruisers have screwed it even more. I'm done with the rework I feel like my good will has been shoved into the dirt and trod all over. I've not even been allowed to learn the class with it be slamwd down into being next to useless 9/10 time. Thanks for reading
  2. ArkRoyal_R09

    Nothing new

    I think a real problem occurred in wows, was when WG decided to give the global AA buff (which was too much imo something a little less would have done) and either later or around the same time (i'm not 100% sure) they got out their new best friend (at this point) Mr sledgehammer and hit the american CV's making them not comparable to the Japanese . This fixed problems that were good in the short term as american CV's were extremely good as they were back then, however it has now created longer lasting problems by the virtue that american carriers just are not used anymore (or at best rarely) why ? because your planes get shot down just as easily as Japanese and yes you might not lose the squadron but you may come out with only 2/3 planes after a strike. Also this pushed the Japanese out further since AA was better you didn't need as good fighters since you could depend on teammates AA a help you out more. So we have now reached a point where I really do think its carriers that now (more than ever before) need to have their re-balance. i'm not sure how to do it, I have some ideas but they are just some guys ideas nothing more. If carriers got their re-balance and perhaps a very very minor drop in AA range (not dps just range and i'm sorry BB's this nerf should be aimed at you) with the hopes that players will now play cruisers more, as Def AA makes a difference, american BB's have a good role again, rather than just another 9/12 16" battleship. it should make Russian dd's less strong as they have the highest Air detect and finally make the american carrier viable as an alternative to the Japanese.
  3. ArkRoyal_R09

    Obligatory MM/BB overpopulation complaint

    Hey look.... The truth
  4. ArkRoyal_R09

    A dear wargaming letter

    @MaxxyNL I can understand peoples reasoning that ‘players should just adapt’ however it’s also a problem to not recognise when there is problems, hence why we change things, but I can understand why you say this. As a player base we can quite commonly just ask for things to be changed before we even have tried it. Thanks to everyone that has added to this topic as I honestly want to try and help aid the development while not kneecapping any one class of ship. Please keep posting the suggestions it’s good to get ideas flying around. I’m glad that Tuccy has seen this and that they understand that nearly 50% aren’t happy with the current situation, we may not agree on what needs to happen but, I think most of us will agree that we don’t want heavy handed approaches to things that might not need it. @Tuccy Thanks for linking the other thread as it does shed some light on some changes that may happen and I’m glad that you and the team are aware and are looking at options. I didn’t want this to become another shouting at the dev’s to fix the game thread. I genuinely want to discuss issues not shout them at people and scream for fixes ASAP. Let’s just say I feel better knowing that at least things are known about and that you understand at least, my concerns. Just a note of thanks to people that have read all this, I know that I have been adding quite a lot of text to sift through but I’m just getting everything down while I think of it.
  5. ArkRoyal_R09

    A dear wargaming letter

    @Negativvv I do agree with your point that bow tanking should not be punished, it should be used aggressively as you say. Smoke I’d maybe prefer the idea of reduce concealment (maybe something similar to the cyclone mechanic, where a ship can spot the ship in smoke below maybe @Indycar I do see people complaining that they cannot take on a BB 1v1 in a cruiser, from my view that is a misjudgement on their part no cruiser should be able to 1v1 without taking considerable dmg. I think ‘most’ people agree on this, opinions may vary. The problems occur when you get the combination of: 1. Cruisers have a not much better concealment when compared to some BB’s (some exceptions i.e. Brit cruisers) 2. less range which now means the cruisers have to get closer making them and easier target to hit. 3. very little chance to retreat due to being spotted by DD or the firing penalty. I’m not saying cruisers need to be a 1 man navy, but they are stuck in a middle ground of being at nearer max range (to try and stay safe) but being well within a BB’s normal range. I do seen an issue where cruisers are now one of the few ships that can be damaged very heavy by another surface ship, due to their citadels. Destroyer’s do not suffer this issue (since no citadel) but can take a lot of AP damage from BB’s if the angle is right. Most Battleships (started with German and now high tier American) have below water citadels making them rather hard to hit. For the Germans turtle back makes them almost impossible to citadel, but they can take a fair amount to AP damage
  6. ArkRoyal_R09

    A dear wargaming letter

    I dont so much agree with the increasing disperssion it just makes it even more rng dependent, cruisers will still be citadeled. To a degree I can go with reducing the amount of AA that BBs have, with the hopes of bringing back more carriers so that cruisers, which have def AA can help and can possibly dodge an aircraft strike, whilst being more fleet support and this gives a reason to target this ship, not just cause its a free cash cow.
  7. ArkRoyal_R09

    A dear wargaming letter

    On some dds yes, kagero I use torp reload as I do on yugumo, but I would say I prefer to use smoke sparingly as possible, just my play style. I don't like to sit in smoke it's very stale and as a dd I don't feel I get lot of damage out of it, and it doesn't help too much
  8. ArkRoyal_R09

    A dear wargaming letter

    Edited to blue thanks for the heads up
  9. ArkRoyal_R09

    A dear wargaming letter

    Hey forumites this is a rather lengthy way of putting my point across and letting as many people see it as possibly. This is basically a letter I sent to Wargaming and I would like to see how many of you agree or not. Firstly I want to congratulate everyone in your team for creating a successful and fun to play game that I have enjoyed playing since gaining access to the Closed Beta. However I have been running a question through my head as to the state of World of Warships. I would like to get Wargamings thoughts as to the problem of the smoke and snipe heavy meta that currently exists in game at the moment. I have seen two main arguments for this. 1. Too many ships (Destroyers/Cruisers) have access to smoke and this has led to a campy meta since anybody pushing into the smoke without some way of spotting ships I is at a disadvantage and will usually take a considerable amount of damage. This means that battleships will sit back at say 12km-17km from enemy smoke screens, whilst those cruisers and destroyers will continue to sit in smoke And from the opposite side 2. Battleships are too willing to sit bow on and snipe at any cruiser even if there is another battleship just as close, so the only way for me to be relatively effective is to use smoke laid down by either myself or destroyers and rain fire down on the battleships that are within range otherwise I’ll be punished by getting shot at by a battleship and it is bound to just delete me. Personally I can see both points of the argument, I myself being a pretty much all round captain (favouring no-one class). On the one hand I can see why battleship player don’t want to push since they attract a lot of fire and cruisers can’t/won’t support them since they risk being deleted by other battleships. Destroyers generally don't make as good escorts since very few have hydro to spot incoming torpedoes and they don’t have the firepower to deal with cruisers (some exceptions as always). From my limited perspective cruisers have a lack of survivability, compared to their potential damage output, while then have the potential to do well it is very very difficult to attain this. Do you feel this has led to the decline of the cruiser population in favour of either join the battleships and use the increased range and damage output, or join destroyers and use torpedoes/Hard to hit as a way to played the game. Hence leading to the more static meta of smoke and snipe, and may I ask what you are looking at doing help alleviate this problem. All the Blue text was sent to Wargaming hoping for a response Thanks for taking the time to read this. Kind regards ArkRoyal_R09
  10. ArkRoyal_R09

    Questions of the Community

    Dear Wargaming, Firstly I want to congratulate everyone in your team for creating a successful and fun to play game that I have enjoyed playing since gaining access to the Closed Beta. However I have been running a question through my head as to the state of World of Warships. I would like to get wargamings thoughts as to the problem of the smoke and snipe heavy meta that currently exists in game at the moment. I have seen two main arguments for this. 1. Too many ships (Destroyers/Cruisers) have access to smoke and this has led to a campy meta since anybody pushing into the smoke without some way of spotting ships I is at a disadvantage and will usually take a considerable amount of damage. This means that battleships will sit back at say 12km-17km from enemy smoke screens, whilst those cruisers and destroyers will continue to sit in smoke And from the opposite side 2. Battleships are too willing to sit bow on and snipe at any cruiser even if there is another battleship just as close, so the only way for me to be relatively effective is to use smoke laid down by either myself or destroyers and rain fire down on the battleships that are within range otherwise I’ll be punished by getting shot at by a battleship and it is bound to just delete me. Personally I can see both points of the argument, I myself being a pretty much all round captain (favouring no-one class). On the one hand I can see why battleship player don’t want to push since they attract a lot of fire and cruisers can’t/won’t support them since they risk being deleted by other battleships. Destroyers generally done make as good escorts since very few have hydro to spot incoming torpedoes and they don’t have the firepower to deal with cruisers (some exceptions as always) Do you feel this has led to the decline of the cruiser population in favour of either join the battleships and use the increased range and damage output, or join destroyers and use torpedoes/Hard to hit as a way to played the game. Hence leading to the more static meta of smoke and snipe.
  11. ArkRoyal_R09

    Balance changes

    How 0.6.3 feels in a nut shell. But in all seriousness. I'll start with this positive I like the new carrier control method this is a nice change and makes it more comfortable to play with them. now for the bad... I'm all for the removal of stealth fire as an Idea it does feel stupid when shells appear out of open ocean, HOWEVER THIS NEEDS MORE TESTING!!!!! All the ships that are having it removed have not been correctly compensated. It creates far more problems than the current stealth fire problem. Japanese DD's are weak they need work. american DD's will need flatter arcs should this patch go through, in which case why not play Russian's. Battleships have been given another boost that they just do not need. I'm all for a well thought out method of removing stealth firing provided its not just an idea that has been though of quickly and quite frankly feels rushed out of the door to make a target. Please create a better thought out system and don't push this patch through.
  12. ArkRoyal_R09

    I would like peoples thoughts on this

    I'm curious now, is there a way that we could look up the average amount of fire damage that a ship does. I know its not ideal as some ships will fire HE which would scew the results. Im just curious if we could get some imperical info on the amount of fire damage the German BB's do.
  13. ArkRoyal_R09

    I would like peoples thoughts on this

    My issue is not the hit ratio, IMO its nice to have the ship lines identifiable, they have their specific area where the excle like most other ship line we have ATM. However why do they only spam HE. Its the exact same situation when the nagato and amagi got their secondaries changed to have more AP based secondaries. If its was a problem for them its a problem for the german line.
  14. ArkRoyal_R09

    I would like peoples thoughts on this

    The issue I have with this argument is that the Bis and other German BB's can still easily citadel other battleships and cruisers (granted angling in a BB helps but good luck in a crusier) and by just increasing the RNG value your just making another WoT arty. Not really a way to balance them. As ive stated I dont find issue with the direct damage that the secondaries do but, I do have an issue with the passive fire damge that gets done which generally out performs the actaul secondary damage done. Is this more of a general fire issuse, maybe, but reducing the amount of HE being flung out of the german secondaries by replacing it with AP, I dont think this will reduce the the secondaries power too much.
  15. ArkRoyal_R09

    I would like peoples thoughts on this

    I do feel like the range and RoF on the German Secondaries is Justified But having also having 15+ secondaries (7+ on one-side using Manual secondaries) with 8 and 9% fire chance is to much but rather than completely nerf the fire chance into the ground I thought that moving the 40% of the secondaries to AP (do more pen dmg but no fire chance) and having the other 60% stay where they are. I would hope this would have the effect of keeping the Germans secondaries strong by reducing the fire damage inflicted (which generally harms cruisers and destroyers more as they cant repair as easily exceptions apply) but the reduced fire damage is compensated by having more direct AP damage done. After all many players don't like hitting Dama Con only 10-20 seconds later to have 2 fires burning again for almost full duration due to the 4-5 second reload with 8-9% fire chance, I know the argument has been made of having correct use of Dama Con but that can only go so far.
×