Jump to content

eliastion

Players
  • Content Сount

    3,728
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    10607
  • Clan

    [TOXIC]

About eliastion

  • Rank
    Captain
  • Insignia
    [TOXIC]

Recent Profile Visitors

960 profile views
  1. eliastion

    RL for Destroyers.

    It's definitely a beneficial skill to have for your destroyer. The question you want to ask is: is it worth spending these 4 points that can give you so many other things. The answer to that is: it depends. It depends on the ship, the player, even the game mode. In my experience the ships that get the most benefit are IJN torpedo boats, because they are otherwise relatively point-light when it comes to captain build. They simply can afford these 4 points and not cry themselves to sleep over the choices left alone. Other DDs tend to struggle more because they either try to buff torps, guns AND hull at the same time OR they have a great need for IFHE, effectively restricting their build freedom a lot. RL (often called RPF and usually dicussed under this acronym here) is a viable pick for most DDs that aren't a Khaba, but not a must-have. Unless you're running a high tier IJN torpboat - for these, I'd say that any 19-point build that doesn't have RL is sub-optimal. It's not quite as necessary as CE, of course, but still the information it gives you is crucial for your battle effectiveness and survival while the alternatives don't seem to provide quite as much benefit.
  2. eliastion

    Sealclubbers ahoy

    Still, if an experienced player starts a new account (or even a new line), plays more than a couple t1 mattches and goes to the Forum ranting about sealclubbers (without mentioning what he himself is doing at that tier but - instead - claiming to be "taking babysteps in WoWs")... it does sound a bit hypocritical, won't you agree? DISCLAIMER: I didn't try to stalk OP, I have no idea about his alleged re-rolling, other server accounts or the amount of t1 battles he's played on EU.
  3. eliastion

    Chat ban - seems pretty ridiculous

    Automatic chat bans are handed out based on a bit more "history". Two reports from a single match are nowhere enough to get you chat-banned HOWEVER just because you never received a chat ban doesn't mean you weren't reported before. If you happened to have a salty day (or week, WG for obvious reasons doesn't go too deep into details of the system), you might've accumulated some bad karma (see what I did there) and the two reports were just the straw that broke the camel's back. As for making sure if you actually got an auto-ban, you should check the description. If it's an auto-ban, it should read "banned by complaints" or something like that (I don't remember precise phrasing). If the ban was handed out manually (you managed to motivate someone to send the replay to support AND the support decided that they should take action) the description would be different (say "insults and provocatiosn", "excessive swearing" or whatnot). In that case you won't know what it was exactly that got you banned, though - it might've been a couple days since you "earned" it. That being said, if the ban was a 24h one, then it's almost certainly the automatic system. When they chatban someone manually, they wouldn't bother to inflict such a light punishment - you'd have gotten three days or a week at a minimum. Probably.
  4. eliastion

    Tier X battles problem

    T10 is more punishing than most tiers AND contrary to what some say: the average experience and ability of players at t10 is above that of most tiers. There are still terribad players there, of course, but the overall level is a bit higher and even the bad players have lots of experience in being bad, so while their situational awareness usually sucks, they usually have some "mechanical" skills at least (they are more adept at hitting things they aim at when compared to bad players of lower tiers). This further increases lethality of being caught in bad situation. These things taken together mean that 1. People learn to be more careful (this, unfortunately, leads to stale meta or even outright cowardly behavior of many players too scared to push in uncertain situation even if the overal situation means that not pushing ensures defeat) 2. Local advantage (one flank crumbling) translates to global advantage faster (enemies far away can flank you, aim reasonably accurately and deal big damage to you when you're caught with your pants down) The #1 is less relevant here but #2 makes it so that steamrolls happen regularly. You see, WoWs is an inherently snowballing game. When a ship goes down, it doesn't just mean "a point scored by the enemy" - it also removes a bunch of friendly guns from the game. Globally it's not THAT much (1/12) but when the battle is separated into 2-3 engagements (two flanks or two flanks+center)m things get difficult. This is even worse when you consider specific classes - especially DDs - that can change balance on a flank through their presence or absence alone. Imagine a balanced flank: teams A and B have 2 BBs, 2 cruisers and 1 DD each (almost half of the team is on the flank). Suddenly a disaster strikes - team A's most aggressively playing cruiser makes a mistake, gets citadelled to death and that sudden death leaves team A's DD vulnerable - team B manages to seize the opportunity and (at the cost of most of team B's DD health) team A's DD goes down. It's just 2 ships (out of 12) down, but on this flank it's not so. The current situation is: team A: 2 BBs, 1 CA team B: 2BBs, 2 CAs, 1 DD Team A's ships probably have more hp but they are overwhelmed. Perhaps the cruiser has Radar but can't afford to try and corner the DD anymore - enemy support is too heavy for that. Team A needs to retreat and it's quite likely to expose them to shells from another part of the map or otherwise push them out of position. Team B, on the other hand, can push in, get the cap and position themselves in a way that allows the BBs to flank the team A's bow-tanking BBs on the other flank... Basically, losing just 2 ships leads team A to be in a globally unfavorable situation, making it more likely to lose even more ships (not to mention control of points). After the match you would look at the results and notice that team B lost 4 ships and team A got almost wiped out - but what you wouldn't see is that the turning point of the battle was an early loss of mere two ships that gave the enemy the advantage that sent the whole team A into a downward spiral and ended up with ignominious defeat for them. Obviously, it isn't usually THAT clear-cut (but it happens) - the point is that seemingly small advantage can help secure even heavier advantage both material (ships) and situational (position), making it harder and harder to make a comeback unless the enemy messes up (there's a lot of messing up even on t10 so it's not like there are no "hopeless" matches turned around, but they are a rare exception). TL/DR: The very nature of WoWs is that VERY decisive victories are going to happen. Even if you took exactly equally skilled players, put them in 100% mirrored MM (obviously neither of the two is true for most matches), you're going to see some completely "unbalanced" battles because a local advantage has a tendency to escalate, potentially leading to crushing defeats. And this gets more prominent as the weapons get more reliable (esp. at range) and players more experienced - and t10 (when compared to lower tiers) has both.
  5. eliastion

    Japanese Destroyer Captain -. Rookie Player

    As for torps - usually you want to be closer to your target than your allies are. Such situations basically guarantee that you won't torp allies. As for detection - it's a good idea to set up your minimap so that it shows your detection range. When in battle press CTRL and then click the cogwell right above the minimap - this should allow you to activate optional things to be displayed on the minimap. Last known positions of enemy ships and detection range (by sea at least) are very useful, some other things can be useful too (I personally use weapon ranges, for example) but the more circles you activate, the more clutter the whole thing gets, up to the point where the actually useful information might be obstructed by the "noise". It's up to you to strike the balance that gives you the info you want while keeping things reasonably simple and easy to read.
  6. eliastion

    Japanese Destroyer Captain -. Rookie Player

    Ok, I'll start with recommendations: 1. While "priority target" is often considered a better pick than "preventive maintenance", this is not that clear-cut and while normally I'd advise PT, this might not necessarily be the case for a new player. PT gives extra information that you, as a newbie, might not be able to utilize (as you say, things are overwhelming when you start of) so PM might be the best choice for you. 2. Last Stand is one of the most important choices for a DD (destroyer) captain - it allows you to better utilize damage control and helps you avoid situations where you get immobilized or lose ability to steer in a ship that is both prone to such damage and very reliant on ability to GTFO as primary survival strategy. So - good choice 3. I'd strongly advise AGAINST picking any more t2. Push to t4 as fast as possible. The order I'd recommend would be as follows (the first two you already have): PM->LS->Torpedo Armament Expertise->Concealment Expert You could maybe switch TAE for something else from t3 (Survivability Expert might be tempting) but you should definitely aim to acquire Concealment Expert as quickly as possible. As IJN DD (Japanese Destroyer) you're going to have to rely on not being seen a lot for both survival (you tend to be squishier than even other DDs) and offense (being closer makes it easier to set up a good torpedo strike). Now, some extra thoughts on specific skills you mentioned: - Jack of All Trades isn't that useful. It only affects consumables and as IJN DD you're not likely to get much benefit of being able to use them faster after previous use. Sure it's a nice bonus but not really worth the points - Smoke Screen Expert - again, not very useful. If you go too fast and smoke spawns behind you, it will STILL spawn behind you. If you go slow enough to be hidden, you won't see that much benefit from the puffs being bigger. There are ships that benefit from SSE but IJN DDs don't belong to that group. - Adrenaline Rush - it depends. It's a great skill but in case of IJN DDs it depends on playstyle. It definitely isn't a skill you should be picking in an IJN DD before Concealment Expert. One more thing to note: the advice above is mostly relevant to the main IJN DD branch that focuses on torpedoes. If you aim for the alternative branch, then my additional advice would be 1. Don't. The ships at t8,9 and 10 of this branch are by no means bad ships but require a lot of perks to perform adequately and you're going to struggle a lot as a new player that only starts grooming middle- and high-point captians. It's very frustrating if you can't set up a 14-point captain on one of them the moment you acquire the ship... 2. If you insist on going there as your first branch, don't take TAE as your t3 skill (pick SE or BFT, or DE instead) and make sure that your build includes IFHE (Inertia Fuse for HE Shells) right after or even right before Concealment Expert. Be aware, however, that this skill - crucial for these three ships - is pretty much useless to their predecesors of tier 7 and below - there's a HUGE shift in playstyle and build between t7 and t8 on this branch. The ships at t8,9 and 10 of the alternate branch are very different
  7. eliastion

    Buff british cruisers allready!

    Well, it is a bit of a pity that someone proving you wrong or explaining something you believed/claimed to have no rational explanation becomes to you "non-sense" that you won't bother to read - but WILL bother to respond to, just to make a point of not having read it.
  8. eliastion

    Buff british cruisers allready!

    Your post contained nothing implying what you claim here. You quoted a guy claiming that he disproved the claim of RN as a whole being underpowered (When you write about all, I disprove you. Period.). Whether the original claim was this broad is up to debate but let's leave the thread name and semantic nuance of the word "especially" aside for now - the point is that he said that it's not true that they all need buffs and provided Leander's relative stats as the evidence that the statement isn't true. The statement - whether actually representing the opinion and intention of OP or not - had been disproven. You, however, questioned this fact. Not the relevance of Leander, not whether OP really meant to make a blanket statement - you denied the "disproval": You claimed that ColonelPete was nitpicking because Leander was first in only one category AND that this category is irrelevant (especially when the values are low) when discussing performance of silver ships. Not a word about Leander not being what OP had in mind. Not a word about you not wanting to talk about Leander. 1. Denial that the claim of all RN cruisers needing buffs had been disproven (Disprove? You didnt.) 2. Claim that ColonelPete nitpicks stats by soring by the only category where Leander is #1 3. Claim that the category in question says nothing about the performance of a silver ship The three kinda imply that you support the claim of all RN cruisers (including Leander) being in need of buffs. After all, if Leander's stat don't disprove the idea that "all RN need buffs" then it implies that Leander does need a buff or - at the very least - its stats don't show that it doesn't. As for myself - I never actually claimed that you asked for the Leander buffs, although yes, my post included sarcastic remarks making fun of the idea that Leander (with presented stats) might be in such need. The main reason why these remarks imply that you do wish for such buffs is because of the context given by the contents of your post that was mostly you denying that Leander's stats show the ship as strong AND you directly refuting the claim of "all RN need buffs" notion being disproven by said stats. And on the ending note, since I've left a small issue aside earlier... I might've missed it and I don't feel like re-reading all CPs posts to make sure, so do be kind enough to point me in the right direction if I'm wrong, but - had CP actually claimed any of what you're putting in your mouth? CP claimed that OP was talking about ALL RN cruisers INCLUDING Leander and Fiji. And when the thread name calls for buffs to "british cruisers" (without pointing out any specific ships) while the opening post also doesn't narrow the category any further than with a word "especially" (a word that does not actually exclude anything but merely puts emphasis on certain sub-set). All that ColonelPete seemed to be fighting against with his Leander example was the blanket statement. He didn't claim that the OP meant especially Leander (as you insist) and he most definitely didn't claim that OP didn't mean Neptune. He denied the blanket statement and provided an example of Leander as proof that at least one of RN cruisers is really strong compared to their peers from other nations. And, as I assume everyone here knows, a statement referring to "all X" can be disproven with a single example. It's one thing to disagree with ColonelPete on whether OP's thread should be interpreted as a demand for buffs for all RN cruisers - but it won't do to put words in CP's mouth. To put it simply: There. Fixed. And we could start a new debate whether "especially" in common use excludes things that are not covered by the group indicated with the word "especially". Going by proper semantics this is not the case but, as we know, common use of language can twist meanings a bit so I guess you could make your case. Still, going by the proper meaning of words, if someone says "I hate fruits, especially citrus ones" then that person still declares the hate of apples, even if they are not qualified as citrus fruits. It would be a completely different thing if someone said "I hate fruits, at the very least the citrus ones" - a statement like this still implies the hate of fruits in general HOWEVER it no longer conflicts with existence of fruits that the speaker does not hate. Of course, people don't always speak so precisely so it's quite possible for the speaker in the first case to actually have an exception or two on their fruit-hating list - still, going by the proper meaning of the statement alone, this should not be the case. Similarly, a statement As it is right now, especially the high tier ones, they are pure frustration. technically means that ALL RN cruisers are pure frustration - the high tier ones just more so. I hope that with this I managed to help you unveil the secret of ColonelPete's conclusion that OP meant all ships. Andd on that optimistic note, I'm willing to agree with you on one more thing: After all, I'm about to go to bed. And yes, I know what hour it is, my day schedule is a bit special at the moment
  9. eliastion

    Buff british cruisers allready!

    Sorry to disappoint. But I can willingly admit to making a mistake - I slipped down a row and read Dallas's tanking as Leander's. Good thing that this was one of the less important things I wrote and the rest holds up nicely. PS: Technically Leander is first in hit three rather than two categories, I omitted hit ratio because it has very, very little to do with balancing. You take something I said, then you add things that I didn't say (I don't say they are false - just that I didn't say anything about them) and you claim that I agreed with something I said nothing about. That's not how it works. Again - at the very most I said something that can be used as part of a different argument on an issue I wasn't talking about at all. Instead of admitting that you said something stupid, you pick part of my post (that goes directly against what you wrote in your post) that can be used as part of an argument on an unrelated issue and on this basis you claim that I agreed with you. It doesn't matter what my thoughts on Neptune balancing are at this point - what matters is that I never said anything about them and - obviously - not taking a stance on that issue I couldn't have possibly agreed with you on it either. Perhaps I would if I were to take a stance - but I didn't. I looked elsewhere because MaypleSyrup has its advantages but is extremely inconvenient to use - but that's not very important so I'll take your word for it and assume that the more reliable data would be as you say. So, it has the lowest WR. And? On this fact you could base an argument to try and convince me to agree with you. However, there's a petty big difference between "based on your opinions expressed in this post I could probably make an argument that would likely convince you" and "in this post you agreed with me". Especially when the subject to the "agreement" (Neptune) isn't even mentioned in the post in question at all.
  10. eliastion

    Buff british cruisers allready!

    Well, it's a pity that you live in your own world, I guess. Must be hard in the long run, no matter how accommodating for you that personal reality of yours might be... What you said was a mixture of nonsense and obvious falsehoods. All, I did was quote the mixture in question and point out that nonsense and falsehoods. My post never mentioned Neptune (the closest it got to that was saying that RN cruisers are more lethal than their damage values suggest) and, more specifically, contained no stance whatsoever on Neptune's need (or lack of such need, for that matter) for buffs. But, by all means, do quote where exactly in my post I say that Neptune needs buffs
  11. eliastion

    Buff british cruisers allready!

    You not only fail to read other people's posts - you don't even understand what you yourself are writing. Perhaps you WANTED to say something about Neptune in that post. But you didn't. All you did was claiming that winrate doesn't show the power of silver ships and speaking objectively false things about stats presented in the ColonepPete's post you were quoting. You can smile all you want but it won't change the fact that you were talking BS and then tried to claim that the person pointing out your BS was actually magically agreeing with you.
  12. eliastion

    Buff british cruisers allready!

    Excuse me, *EDIT*? You claimed that the guy you were quoting was nitpicking about Leander's stats (not really the case), that Leander was first only in winrate (completely false) and that winrate tells nothing about the strength of a ship (false again). I pointed out that you were writing complete BS and that's somehow agreeing with you on something not even mentioned in either of our posts (neither you in the post I quoted not me in my post as much as mentioned Neptune)?
  13. eliastion

    Buff british cruisers allready!

    Lolnope. Winrate is the most telling stat, ESPECIALLY when it comes to silver ships that have been out for a while. There are special cases (IJN DDs tend to draw in the kind of players least suited to playing them, so they score below what they "deserve" going by their potential alone) but overall winrate is the best gauge of ships' power relative to their peers. The ships where winrate actually does fail to show their power accurately are ships that have special circumstances like, say: - reward ships - Akizuki when she was the top of her tree Additionally, it's not very useful to compare gold and silver ships. But "normal" silver ships are actually the category that can be compared pretty reliably based on the winrate. Other stats, in the meanwhile, are pretty much useless because they depend on playstyle. And complaining that RN cruisers have less, say, damage than other cruisers is even more laughable. A good portion of damage dealt by other cruisers tends to be fire damage (stacks slowly over time, fully repairable). British cruisers hardly deal fire damage at all - their damage is almost exclusively the much higher grade AP damage. Lower absolute numbers don't mean that they hurt the enemies less. And, in fact - surprise surprise - Leander wasn't actually at the top only in winrate but in kills per battle as well. Almost as if it was still pretty lethal despite low-ish damage, right? But sure. A ship that is, among the cruisers on her tier - top in WR - top in kills per battle - second in % battles survived - second in amount of damage per battle tanked definitely sounds underpowered and needs heavy buffs. After all, the damage per battle is in the lower half of the table (4th out of 7)!
  14. eliastion

    Miss dream

    This is precisely why lootboxes should be considered gambling and treated accordingly. At the very least game companies should be forced to disclose the chance of getting specific prizes - realizing that they have a 0,005% chance of getting what they want might wake some people up BEFORE they blow hundreds of euro on gambling for the shiny prize.
  15. Not necessarily. When DD-hunting in Kitakaze or Daring, the enemy is likely to try and run away. The first couple salvoes are the most effective and then the effectiveness drops off as the enemy starts reacting to the threat you pose. Being a little bit faster can still give a slight bump to that initial effectiveness, even if not enough time has yet passed to grant you the extra shot.
×