Karasu_Browarszky

Sounds like a tale of two tribals. I am of two minds as well, personally. There's the fact that it breaks the concept of any one class sharing the same set of fundamentals, there's the fact that WG is apparently fiddling with the internal mechanics in some underhanded fashion, and there is the the fact that ship may actually turn out better than the Tribal class DD's....

This thread is turning, if I dare say so... rather..tribal.

Now, that's a name I haven't heard in a long time. The only thing missing from the equation is... *gasp* the Ocean!

Not too sure about that, TBH. I get the flight time data from the UI, but what really has an impact on things is the trajectory, because the aiming experience is directly dependent on the ballistic trajectory. It's nearly impossible to aim/lead the shots on a target that is moving relatively fast even if you know the flight time, because you will always be a couple of seconds late reacting to the action that your target takes.

Yes, but. You do realize that while everyone, even me, can spot the difference between a rail gun arc and an over the moon kind of an arc, when you start getting into differences that are smaller, more difficult to notice in gameplay though still being noticeable enough in terms of the game mechanics... you start thinking not so much about if the guns on this or that ship are different, or is it just you and your aim is off for some reason. Having actual numerical data would be very helpful in this regard.

Yeah... there's a lot I don't personally like about the smoke and spotting mechanics in this game. I do agree that the Italian smoke is maybe one that is very useful for the player (and very irritating for the red team player you are facing...). To make a long story short, though, I think the smoke should be strictly a defensive or a screening measure, but WG thinks very differently on this subject. Granted, what I'd like to see them do would have an impact on gameplay and would likely result in a game that is a lot harder to play well.

Interesting ideas, but in a sense something like this could be possible. Another related approach could be if the ships were considered to represent some specific (preferably historically based) refit with some specific operational area in mind, some of the differences, possibly also relating to the gun parameters, could be attributable to that. Unless I'm mistaken, the guns would have needed to be regularly serviced, so the parameters could become altered following the reboring or relining of the barrels, without the need of necessarily resorting to shell type differences as such.

Are you kind of thinking about the offensive capabilities of the consumables? I'm not sure what to think about this myself, this could possibly be useful if you could actually regulate the usage yourself, that is to say, save some of the consumable time till later. I think that could get a little complicated, though, because these consumables overall work very differently from the AA which isn't a consumable at all. Actually, having said that, while I understand the smoke being a consumable, I cannot understand how things like the hydro or radar can be consumables (yes, I know it's a gimmicky arcade game with dodgy mechanics but still....)

The shaft?

I can only speak for myself but... the gun arc is probably one of the biggest, if not the biggest determining factor when it comes to my performance on any given ships, because it has a huge impact on how well I can expect to aim my shots. As for the issue of should sister ships perform similarly to each other, or should the exact same guns on various ships perform similarly to each other (we know they don't, and sometimes their performance deviates because of questionably WG design choices but...), my two cents are as follows: 1. Differences in technical parameters (which I consider the ballistics to be): there should be none, or they should be minimal, possibly 'explained' by varying degrees of wear and tear, or due to manufacturing related differences, and to a larger degree when the ship reflects the status following a refit. (Yes, I'm basing this on RL because the various ship classes, unless paper ships, are based on RL ships.) 2. Differences in performance related parameters (such as the reload times etc, or ship rudder speed and so on): there can be differences due to reasons such as crew performance and experience, level of maintanence skill etc. These have an impact on gameplay, but a less noticeable than any differences in the technical parameters will cause. .

Yes, I agree. Having similar gun arcs means they share a fundamental feature that I could call 'class specific' (although it also happens to be a feature of the Soviet tech tree as well), the other differences can be referenced as 'ship specific' features. I have to say that in my opinion the main gun firing parameters are probably such a fundamental feature of their performance that they determine how similar the ships are in terms of gameplay. Not that I mind the flatter arcs, of course, I think they are an improvement over the ballistic ones, but if we are talking about what is going to be their defining feature then it's also a matter of principle of sticking to that.

Gnevny, Gremyashchy and Anshan? Remind me what are their gun arcs like.

Well.. many of those things you mention produce subtle changes to the gameplay experience, something that can perhaps be considered to 'lend character' to these ships and make them different enough to feel unique. However, as someone to whose gameplay experience the shell arcs have a huge impact on, I'd say any change in that is going to produce quite a significant change in terms of the gameplay.

I thought it was that you could get lucky if the sailor was polishing his torpedo or something?.... Worth watching, by the way.

Iwami in port.

Tatooine would be as good as a black hole for all practical purposes...

1st container of the day, resources.

Well... change, yes, but if we are honest that's the thing that keeps not only the money coming in but the players in the game as well, as long as the changes do not make the game worse, of course.

Yes, I think so too. There's no need for it to be an exact copy of, say, Haida, but it would have to be a Tribal class DD. If WG releases the ship with stats that deviate too far from the possibilites of the actual historical class, it won't be a Tribal class DD which kind of defeats the purpose of calling it Huron.

To me it seems if it is a 'Tribal class DD' then it should be a Tribal class DD. The tribal class destroyers underwent refits and at least some modifications during their career. What exactly are we getting, and how does it relate to the ship's service history as outlined here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Huron_(G24)

There's a lot of variation, but I understand different items have different odds, so the better stuff drops more rarely. Some of it is more useful, and more welcome, like coal or steel, for instance. The flags and camos... I make use of them myself, on select ships for either grinding xp or for making it easier to complete some very specific missions.

What problem is that, comrade? There is no problem.

Cheers!