Jump to content

Ungrim_Baraz

Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    8118

About Ungrim_Baraz

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia
  1. Ungrim_Baraz

    Aircraft Carrier Beta Round 3 - Feedback Thread

    + 1 to that Please stop calling us stupid to our faces. Give some sort of auto pilot or stand by for the squadron currently under control in order to quickly tap 1 and go back to controlling the CV, handle the problem whatever it might be, and then back to whatever remains of the squadron still in the air waiting for orders... That could do it for me, but no, you are forcing us to retrieve the squadron just to be able to steer the ship or press "R"... Not cool WG
  2. Ungrim_Baraz

    BB AP changes on DD

    Hello, on the topic of saturating BB AP damamge on DDs to 10% I am really dissapointed. it is a very bad change because anything which does not follow a general rule is only a potential source of problems, something extra to remember for new players (again, instead of following a general rule) and a patch to hide some other broken mechanic in the backglorund. Moreover, this exception holds exceptions to itself making Khabarovsk (I guess because you did not know how to deal with the 50 mm plate on the exception) and Harugumo (I guess because you do not dare to buff it, relatively to the other DDs. But again, this is an exception as this DD does not have any special armour feature). The elephant in the room is the double AP pen problem (1 Monty AP on Gearing = over 7 k damage, ouch!) and the problem of why DDs remain spotted within killing range of BBs (8-12 km) for long enough for the BB to actually, reload (but not long enough for the BB to swap ammo to HE even if that was the best ammo) and turn the turrets and aim on them: And that is the big meta problem of Radar. You are hiding behind the BB AP pen on DDs rework (using it as a patch) instead of addressing the underlying meta (radar) and internal ricochets (double AP damage) problems. And this is not nice. Rather than commiting to solving the underlying problems you are putting an ugly patch which goes against the general game´s mechanics. Next thing: I will begin crying in order for Roma to have an exception so that it cannot overpen despite its fast shells, because, you know, learning to fire at an slightly angled cruiser instead of perfectly broadside is too difficult... It is the same problem, a general mechanic (very fast sehlls overpening cruisers) leads to some apparently unexpected situation, so yeah, please, hardcode that Roma cannot get overpens, will you? This 10% rule means that a fast DD like, oh I do not know, Grozovi (with a very convenient heal), has no problem whatsoever charging bow on an enemy BB and torping at point blank range. You claim the BB should change to HE, but even if that was the best ammo, there is no time to change ammo if the DD charges straight to the BB (changing ammo can easily be 40 secs without firing) Put effort on correcting the internal ricochets leading to huge AP pens and rework radar. Buff its range making it way longer, range = gun range, but make it be line of sight blocked and way shorter time (not more than 2 Moskva or Buffalo reloads respectively), in order to change it into a fleet info gathering tool rather than a DD killer tool. In this way there is counterplay for the DDs (hide between islands, you know, counterplay, that thing which now the BBs do not have if a DD charges bow on for point blank torping) and cruisers would move from behind islands giving useful information on the enemy fleet´s general position and movement (i.e. late game Moskva searching for the last 2 surviving ships, btw, current radar has absolutely no relation to the expected role of soviet cruisers meant for long range engagements...) Very dissapointed. Edit: Even more, it is disgusting that you violate general mechanics in order to avoid fixing what is broken, and even more, introduce ship-specific mechanics... Seriously, now I want anotehr ship specific implementation, let´s make Roma and French high speed shells never be allowed to over-pen, shall we? redefine overpens to regular pens, because, why not? You now have a ship specific damage implementation...
  3. Ungrim_Baraz

    General Feedback

    Ok, fair enough about Dunkerque, I do not say it needs it, jsut that, if WG decides ever to buff it (as they do from time to time, and because as I said I cannot believe anyone claims for it to be OP) maybe boost would be nice, and fits. About the IJNn DDs, do not worry, I passed those long time ago, I do not need to be reminded "use the guns", I do, and I am awaiting for the new Shima to get it and slam the F3s on her. About the stealth torping I meant the stock Fubuki, IIRR stock cannot stealth torp, and I said this because they are the supposed torp boats, as WG claimed the new line was more gun oriented (and they will reinfore with the future new T9 and 10), whilst newer DDs have even more of a torp threat. In any case, those comments were for WG staff, I did not know you had to be their police. Rather than charging against me for what in the end are pretty small balance comments, you could have tried to build uppon the possitive feedback I gave... Try to chill dude. Bye.
  4. Ungrim_Baraz

    General Feedback

    IMHO buff to Shima is well deserved, now perhaps Akatsuki and Fubuki too? I was very glad I had gone beyond them before the IJN DD smash... those two ships, presumed torp boats, even struggle to stealth torp... Talking about balance, any chance you give Dunkerque the engine boost? I do not think anyone would call Dunkerque OP, and it is kind of sad that she is no longer the fastest BB at T6, #1 shared with Normandie, and it totally fits on the French BB high tier style of which Dunkerque is representative... My favourite addition on this patch, might be the 2 spotting and potential damage counters added. Nonetheless, I would appreciate if the importance given to them was bigger in-game by giving the 3 damage counters the same font size and making the two new numbers appear as well on the summary at the end of the game so that new, or old but crap, players get hammered with the idea that these numbers are very important. Also, please enable by default these 2 new damage counters as many new, or just bad, players might not even hear about them and these are the people in more need of them, if someone does not want the counters on screen (there is no real reasson not to want them though....) they still could deactivate them... Please keep on building on the teamplay oriented encouragement which these two counters point to by adding 2 new sets of tiered achievements, one for spotting and one for potential damamge: Make the rank #1 of these achievements be given to the player during the game, and broadcasted to the team by chat, once the player achieves a certain threshold (which should be balanced so that tier 5 ships can achieve it, maybe 40 k spotting / 750 k potential? ) and make then this reward´s tier increase every some amount of damage ( maybe half the base tier 1 value´s ), then you could even give, only on odd tier levels, 1 flag of those you get by tens for Dreadnought (many times encourages a reckless behavior searching to actually be damaged, or coward by trying to preserve the ship despite game situation) and Double Strike (many times pure luck, or greedy kill-steal) achievements respectively. In this way you would actually reward both with falgs, for the palyer, and in chat (showing to the teammates) positive actions of the palyers. Maybe this + the new counters could help with camping Conquerors at the back with less than 600 k potential damage, at full hp, and 300 points behind opponents... Please, do keep on thinking how to encourage teamplay and penalize troll behavior, also border window lickers deserve to burn on contact with map border if they do not turn the rudder away of it...
  5. Ungrim_Baraz

    Ranked Season

    Looking forward to this Ranked tier split! I think including TX in ranked is a good move.
  6. Ungrim_Baraz

    Bug Reports

    +1 Happened twice in a row using Des Moines with Galaxy cammo. After killing the game and starting again, I arrived to the same hence, game not usable until "battle" ends. I could play only one battle from the 3 I tried, the one I played was G.K with space cammo, there were 4 enmy AFKs +/-
  7. Ungrim_Baraz

    Deepwater Torpedoes

    Note: This post will be related to another one on the thread "Pan-Asian destroyers" Both posts will probably be long and rich in negative feedback, but I will try to keep them construcctive (just try, no promises) Pan asian post: TL, DR: Current DW torpedo punishes weak members of the current ecosystem without affecting the undesired parasitic lazy coward snipping BB overpopullation. Current DW implementation vs draft based has absolutely no point. Man up, bring some complexity into the game, and let all DDs choose in battle their torpedo depth! Post: I do not get it... I seriously do not get the point of this DW mechanic. You had the opportunity of implementing a slightly complex mechanic (draft dependent impact) which you then decided to dumb down so that the weapon interacts only with the in-game classes rather than geometry / any kind of physical magnitude as the whole ballistics system seems, and even praises itself, to work ("realistic" penetration and armor model...). This leads, for example, to the puzzling situation reported by some people (I have not seen it yet in game, I´d be glad if someone else either confirms it or denies it with evidence) by which DW torps simply ignore DD wrecks... By creating a torpedo with clear striking potential advantage due to the greatly reduced reaction time you introduced a clear threat against BBs and Cruisers. Cruisers, specially the lazier heavy cruisers, for sure do not need more threats, and the BBs affected are the ones closer to the action. Yes, sometimes you might pull off a long torpedo attack against an snipping lazy BB at the very back, but most of the times you´d prioritize the biggest meannest hulking beast whcih is closer to you... Because in this way you minimize the common problem to any torpedo attack: not the reaction time, but the travel time to target, the longer this time, the wider the spread (lower damage density) and the highest the chances of your target pullling an unexpected maneuver (if map and positioning allows it, oh look yet ANOTHER underwater citadel BB, they do not care that much about risking a maneuver and hence they can pull off more unexpected course changes! Whole bloody RN and USN tier IX and X buff, looking at you!). In other words, the current extra threat of these DW torpedoes is towards cruisers (already endangered species) and aggressive BBs (as common as unicorns sometimes) not against the useless underperforming snipping BBs. Moreover, this DW mechanic is once again an "overspecialized" weapon in the same way as the "old" USN CVs loadouts were overspecialized and hence made them unable to adapt to how the battle evolved, which has made you collapse the 2 overspecialized options into one single versatile loadout... Ironically enough, in the same patch in which you introduce an overspecialized torpedo which will never be able to hit DDs (not even their sinking wrecks...), which as previously stated brings a bigger threat to endangered species on the ecosystem than the parasitic snipping and coward BB with over 80% hp 15 minutes into the game whcih was lost 10 minutes ago... We can all relate to this scenario (Not to mention the frustration which will bring into new players at tier 3 and 4 specially with the ridiculously OP tier 4 pan asian DD) Looking back, you were toying with the idea of making the impact draft-dependant... this would have allowed for good players to maybe sometimes pull enough roll as to avoid the torpedo impact: Rewarding good defensive actions, whilst at the same time granting you the possibility of balancing more carefully each DW torp, but no... you had to dumbify it down... Rather than that, I propose the opposite direction: DO complicate it, DO model draft dependent impact (come on!!! you were close to this!!!), and DO offer ALL DDs the possibility of selecting in battle the draft for their torpedoes. Easy example, use the keys 3, 4 and 5 for shallow, medium and deep draft configured torpedoes, if need be go through the whole laoding cycle again if player wants to change (hey look, another use for Expert loader!)... Make this a general mechanic NOT exclusive to an unwanted and conflicting branch (check the other post) so that any DD can decide to launch deeper torpedoes (specific draft tier and maybe nation dependent) in order to improve their concealment. IF you do base the DW mechanic on real dimensions and not just boolean, (torpedo_hit = target_ship.__class__ != Destroyer) as you seemed to try at the beginning, you can open a whole new level of parameters with which to balnace broken lines, IJN DDs ehem... More on IJN vs Pan Asia DDs on the other thread... PD: Very long and very late, did not proff read, might be full of typos. apologies
  8. Ungrim_Baraz

    Pan-Asian destroyers

    Note: This post will be related to another one on the thread "Deepwater Torpedoes" Both posts will probably be long and rich in negative feedback, but I will try to keep them construcctive (just try, no promises) DW torp post: TL, DR: Expensive to develop and unnecessary branch with an innefective mechanic, which, it seems, has infurated its whole target audience: the SEA server (you even had to rework at the very last moment the pan asian flag...). This whole Pan asia DD + DW torp is the perfect example of pointless and short sighted development sprinkled with OP ships culminating on yet another power creeper Tier X searching that juicy free xp conversion. I cannot despise more the Pan asia DDs and current DW torpedo mechanic, but there is light at the end of the tunnel, maybe... just maybe... at least for the DW mechanic... Not to mention the terrible opportunity cost that this whole development means, I wonder, could this effort have been spent on, oh, don´t know... fulfilling the prophecy: "2017 year of the CV" and in this way actually punishing cnacer sniper coward BBs? Post: Oh boy... I have spent so much money on WoWs... I do not even want to know it... And this patch (actually just the Pan Asian DDs + DW torps as USN CV seems Ok and upgrades reshuffling nice too) has been the last drop which made me give ZERO [edited] for this game form here onwards... Maybe you WG think this is good because you cannot milk me more so I make room for a new cow to milk, I seriously doubt anyone getting into the game now would spend as much as I have done since CBT... Back in the day you nerfed IJN torps to the bottom of the ocean because of torpedoe soups and since then you have basically kept on nerfing DDs. Meanwhile you kept on buffing BBs so that they were more retarded friendly to play culminating with the RN BBs... which account for 70% of that glass full of bile which has made me quit, the whole branch should be burnt down, pun intended, and made anew. So now you come up with the briliant idea of developping a "capital ship" killer DD branch to feast upon the BB overpopulation, and you invest tons of development on... pan asian DDs... why? Just why?! It seems because of targeted "customers": the SEA server... And you compeltely screw them raising polical discussions and nationality issues how could you not see this comming??... Meanwhile the other servers could not care less for these ships so you invest heavily on DW and even hype the community and incetivate free xp conversion with yet another power creeping branch with several extremly OP ships tier 4, 7, and in my opinion 10: all round better gunboat than Gearing (specially due to the way way lower profile + best in game stealth at tier X + best "solo-random player" smokes: perma smoke). Oh boy... It is this short-sighted development what infurates me. On the previous patch you suddenly, out of the blue, change a core mechanic (fire duration for cruisers and DDs) without ever having been this a big concern in game, which worked in the same way as the 20 secs firing debuff on concealment: being the same for all classes. Whilst for the debuff you have reffussed once and again the possibility of tunning it class dependent due to the smoke rework, now out of the blue you do make class dependent the fire duration. I wonder, may this have anyhitng to do with the shortly before introduced stupid fire hooses RN BBs? And yet another example, after the smoke firing rework (which I do support) now suddenly RN CLs smoke got a massive buff, when in their begiining you were adamant on not ackwoledging any bug with their smoke until you finally yielded and granted 2 more seconds in orther to ensure for the second puff to be deployed, Now, suddenly, 15 secs for smoke puffing for RN CLs... Where has hte statement of "we want RN CLs to be challenging and meant for more experienced players" been left?? May htis have any relation to the smoke firing nerf?? why do you lie and hide behind "effective consumable ussage" instead of manning up and pointing the finger to RN BBs and smoke nerf? That hypocresy + short sighted on development are not acceptable. That previous paragraph describes what I consider short sighted development problems, and nasty ugly improvised patches to deeper problems. The pan asian DD branch is the same. That is why I hate their current implementation and appreciated the new port slot I got. More over, their faulty DW mechanic even tainted the development of a well expected premium ship: GZ, as you were (and maybe are) keen on making a CV use DW torps, why on earth would a short ranged air dropped torpedo try to be stealthy??? Pelase stopp messing with it! This new branch combines low appeal (even rejection on their intended audience, SEA server), gimmicky mechanics (several), betrayal of your own words as "you did not want any other ship form getting radar other than cruisers" lmao, best in class solo player smoke consumable, very controversial DW mechanic (check my other post), yet another free xp hyped conversion (overperforming tier 7 and 10), and potentially the biggest power creep on IJN DDs as torpedo boat ever... Either the DW torpedoes do not work (check my other post) or they render obsotele IJN torps. My only hope is that this branch is jsut a platform with which to test DW torps and then give them to other branches, but if i am not wrong you do not want to do this in a general way because... This branch biggest defining feature is the DW mechanic... Maybe this branch is just not appealing enough and should not have been implemented into the game before other much awaited branches and specailly with a controversial new weapon expensinve to develop? And why do I find that last point infuraiting? well... because a harder hitting more difficult to avoid torpedo sounds as the most simple solution to take care of the BB overpopulation (please do check my other post) but it is not! because it will just punish aggressive BBs without specially foscussing on the cancer of hte game: lazy nsipping coward BBs. And do you knwo what can indeed attack these useless parasites better? the CVs! So This is why I find the whole DW torps specially infurating! Yo uspend crap ton of development on a new weapon for a new unwanted branch which does not properly address the parasitic BB overpopulation isntead of fulfilling the claim "2017, year of the carrier". Oh btw, I am mainly an aggressive BB plaer, and I want CVs back! (or I would if I kept on palying) PD: Very long and very late, did not proff read, might be full of typos. apologies
  9. Ungrim_Baraz

    Graf Zeppelin

    Seriously WG, WTF! First the Foschgate (Jingles and PointyHairedJedi), and now you shotgun iChase... will you do the same with Notser? With LittleWhitemouse? I am a whale, I have no idea how much money I´ve spent on this "thing" you call game, and I do not want to know. I feel you are sinking your own boat here, how the hell can´t you learn a damm thing? All the G.Z. story is becoming a huge scandal driven only from your greed. I am glad you are managing to destroy your own game, soon I will have time for proper games like total war warhammer, or Dishonored 2, form proper companies and not this joke of public relations and greed you became. Stop [edited]pouring half cooked content, focus on fixing the problems in the game, punish lazy BBs economically making them tank a certain minimum to start earning credits, focus on the core mechanics of CVs and the crappy GUI, and stop the content-crap even if you cannot sell new fancy useless or OP premiums. Fix the game, and then the people will play it, or just keep going like now and see the people getting angry and leaving. You won´t see a cent from my wallet in long long time, and I recommend you try make peace with iChase and the others. Apologice, and behave as adults acknowldging your multiple mistakes. Or just, [edited]off...
  10. Ungrim_Baraz

    Update 0.6.4 Feedback - New Port

    Very nice, thanks!
  11. Ungrim_Baraz

    Public Test 0.6.4 Round 2 - changes

    IMHO regarding the balance changes: Khaba: If the aim is to lower the combat efficeincy at close range, why not nerfing the turret traverse instead of nerfing so hard the rudder which you still need for dodging at longer ranges? More over, if the gameplay should be focussed on longer range, why is the Khaba still outranged by the TIX and TVIII? This affects too to the Gearing and Grozovoi. Question: Wouldn´t it be possible to add a researchable gun fire control system letting the user choose whether to apply the +10% range or not. Which in my opinion is desriable on both Russians (and would make them not to be so outranged by lower tiers) but debatable on the Geraing... KM CA armor buff: Almost useless on the Hindenburg (low number of CLs with 6" HE or BB with 15") Decent buff on the TVIII, but... Many other CAs have 25 mm of plating, for example the mighty Moskva... So, yeah changing from 25 to 27 mm is nice, but does not address the main problem of these high tier KM CAs, the low reliability of their suposedly area of expertise, the AP... Please just improve hte AP performance... It is just an insult that the best 8" shell AP performance in the Zao´s IJN DDs turret traverse: So be it... but the IJN DDs were never meant to be gunboats, rather hit and run, ninja style. for that you need big alpha, send 3 salvos +/- and leave... For that you need the HE alpha dammage pre-nerf... no fancy turrets... IJN DDs range buffs: IMHO that is a nerf due to 0.6.4, nuff said... IJN torpedo buffs: IMHO, not enough, but a first step. And please, remove the 20 km useless shima torps... but seriously, IJN DDs should be the best torpedoboats, and they are far from it... Mogami turrets: Thanks!! could we aask for a bit more??? XD 30 secs maybe?
  12. Ungrim_Baraz

    PTS Special Mission - Saint-Louis

    Regarding the steps sequence driven mission, I do not have any complain with that, if WG needs something specifically tested, so be it. Regarding the ship. I do like her, very very accurate guns, nice, rudder very weak though. But I do have a complain regarding the speed, suposedly the falvor on the French CA/CL line is speed. Well, I could not outrun any of the cruisers behind me. Also, being the speed boost percentual based, it seems pretty much mandatory to save all the speed flags for this line, a bit dissapointing that in order to make the most out of the consumable you´ve got to use such a signal, which btw at least for me is a bit complicated to farm/find as it is very situational... So, when boosting, yes you cna rellocate and that is nice, you can move and support wherever neededd, but the base speed for a "speedy cruiser line" is quite dissapointing, Zao, Dmitri, Ibuki... all of them are as speedy or more...
  13. Ungrim_Baraz

    Update 0.6.3 Feedback - Stability

    Way worse optimization. Very heavy use of PC resources now, in battle game less responsive, image stutters sometimes (random drops to 15 FPS without heavy ping...), specially when displaying multiple ribbons gotten simultaneously, audio crackling, feels "burnt" (no music used, only game effects).... My computer is melting now....
  14. Ungrim_Baraz

    Update 0.6.3 Feedback - Balance changes

    I´ll try to be brief: CV nerf: I would understand removing Alt attacks from T4 CVs, becasue as you say there is a lot to learn regarding positioning and other topics of CV gameplay for a newcomer... And because T4 CVs were top seal clubbers.... but I see no point at all for T5 CVs to loose the Alt attacks, specially as they can easily be bottom tier... I am sure Bayerns with manual AA (like mine) are going to have good laughs at Bogues trying to strike them... No, I see no point for hindering the gameplay experience (very unfair MMs), and learning curve, by delaying the unlocking of Alt attacks to T6... Stealth-firing removal: Yes, I do lean more towards BBs (despite grinding all the pew pew lines, for example I do have all the T9 cruisers) and yes, I seriously disliked the stealth firing mechanic (I hated Zaos, on either team, doing nothing but hanging at the back and slinging HE without actually supporting the front). So I am glad you removed it. But I think I did prefer the game before than with this stupid stealth rework due to the massive hit DDs are taking, if 0.6.2 had problems, 0.6.3 has more. There is no other way of putting it. It is just dumb, feels "cheap", "improvised". I suspect the only reasson you buffed some ships like the Ishizuchi is because otherwise there would be some sort of failed assertion in he kernel, as if you could not support now such an exception, any ship having longer spotting than range... so so cheap... How can it possibly be that a Koenig, or said Ishizuchi, have lower concealment "debuff" than any peeshooter? and that you deny it is a BB buff? Yes, I do lean more towards BBs, and first thing I did was dropping the range upgrade on any non Russian/Soviet DD, like my Shiratsuyu and Fletcher in favor of the stock range... so sad... GG WG... PD: The paranoic / conspiranoic in me assumes all this belongs to a bigger plan in which the former DD role would be left for an upcoming "weapon" called submarines... XD
  15. Ungrim_Baraz

    Public Test Update - 31/01/2017

    Am I mad, or the Z-23 has been nerfed? I thought the 150 guns module gave you a forntal double turret. But now on the test server it only is a single gun, so instead of 5 guns, 4... Am I mistaken or have I missed something before? EDIT: Ups.... forgot to install first the hull upgrade, my bad...
×