Jump to content

eliastion

Players
  • Content Сount

    4,529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    11480
  • Clan

    [TOXIC]

About eliastion

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,532 profile views
  1. eliastion

    Friendly Fire

    There is a pretty big downside, actually. You see, currently there's no real incentive for the teamkiller to further harass their victim - they might still rage but there's nothing they can get from the person they damaged/sunk, making any complaints nothing but useless venting. Implementing a system like this creates a situation where someone acknowledging that it was their fault that they got torped might actually benefit the teamkiller. Imagine how the entitled second-line torpers (that we sometimes see popping up here on the Forum) would behave if they knew that they actually CAN be spared changing color as long as they get their victim to agree to click the "pardon" button. And imagine how many of the victims are going to respond to "you should pardon me, it's your fault that you ran into my torps" demands. This is just asking for extra toxicity.
  2. eliastion

    Friendly Fire

    To really get punished you need to be a) extremely careless (torping from second line on regular basis) b) attacking teammates on purpose c) really, really, REALLY unlucky In the first two cases - you deserve the punishment. In the last case - you suffer through a couple coop matches and you're good again. And if you find yourself in c) more than once or twice in your entire WoWs career, then you're actually the case of a), sorry. Basically, there's no real problem that would be fixed by "pardon" option. There are, however, problems that would be caused by it. Having such a system would lead many entitled second-line torpers to demand being "pardoned" by their victims. They would also feel wrong and offended if their demands were not met. Simply having the option to pardon someone for damaging/sinking you would increase the toxicity of chat and probably generate some "idiots sail into my torps and refuse to pardon me even though it's clearly all their fault!" threads on the Forum. The gain (the ability to save someone from getting pink once a blue moon) is just not nearly worth it.
  3. eliastion

    Perfectly BALANSED Russian shell arcs ))))

    Good shell arcs are literally THE trait of Russian DDs, though. Take this away from them and they're f*cked. They don't really have the DPS shown by other gunboat lines, they are big and have poor stealth. Yes, their shell arcs are easy mode, letting them fight at distances where other DDs suffer heavily - but they HAVE TO fight at these distances. What's the point in complaining that a line is good at the thing that's their specialty, for which they pay in many other areas to the point that they hardly even qualify as DDs and tend to be unable to perform many DD jobs at all?
  4. eliastion

    PLEASE unify the consumables hotkeys

    If I ever want a prophecy, I know who to go to. I think I don't feel the need to read your post any further, it's just going to be an exercise in futility. Your resistance to arguments and facts was one thing, but seeing how, you've just managed to rudely accuse me of not reading something without yourself bothering to click the link I provided... you'll have to excuse me. Although, at the very least, I'll still respond to the very comment of yours that managed to kill - mid-post - my remaining interest in continuing the conversation. So, without further ado... The very first sentence of the article I linked: A submarine aircraft carrier is a submarine equipped with aircraft for observation or attack missions. The third sentence: The most famous of them were the Japanese I-400-class submarines and the French submarine Surcouf, although small numbers of similar craft were built for other nations' navies as well. And guess what Surcouf carried? This. In case you might have problems clicking links, I'll also quote the first sentence of this article: The Besson MB.411 was a French two-seat spotter and observation floatplane, designed by Besson. Emphasis in all the quotes, obviously, mine. Sorry that I won't keep responding to your further points, but I really can't be bothered to as much as read it at this point, as much as I do realize how impolite it might be. Then again, this discussion was hardly going anywhere - we were starting to discuss in circles and, considering the remarkable resistance to sensible arguments you managed to display, I have little hope that professional expertise could've possibly convinced you either - and even less that you could've listened to further arguments. Considering that, it might be for the better to just stop at this point anyway. Have a nice day and many enjoyable matches.
  5. eliastion

    RTS vs Rework - Saipan

    Well, we're talking personal feelings here, basically, not some solid metrics. So, rather than giving you a detailed analysis I'll just say that I've had some CV games in RTS era when I wanted to throw away my keyboard, or at least quit to port (unless I got sent there already, courtesy of the enemy). I have yet to face a similar situation post-rework. Although, admittedly, I played very little DDs immediately post rework and I've been absent for the last couple patches now - I basically came back and played some coop to grab some supercontainers lately so I can't really say anything about the situation of DDs after the AA changes. So it would seem that I've "missed" the initial peak of CV power (well, not really, I was playing CVs ) and have yet to test the waters during what you are evaluating as the new peak. Still, as far as my fragmented post-rework DD experiences are concerned, CVs just scare me that much less - and not just "on average" (since I know you'll promptly attribute this to lower general skill level that you blame for the fact that CVs aren't completely dominating) but even the worst matches don't even come close to the bad ones from before.
  6. eliastion

    RTS vs Rework - Saipan

    As a DD player I feel the need to disagree. Sure, to say that CV harassment is inconvenient is a monstrous understatement and I hate CVs with passion when not sitting in one (I barely play BBs and cruisers, you see) but it's still much better than it was pre-rework.
  7. eliastion

    world record damage chaos?

    As someone earlier mentioned - it's not that strange. To put it simply: there's only so much hp on the map and if your allies do a decent job, they bring that number further down. Scoring really good in damage strongly implies that your team sucks (it's not always true but the correlation is there). What's more, when the enemy notices that they're winning hard, they become reckless. A combination of conceit and calculation often leads to aggressive behavior the player wouldn't have engaged in otherwise, be it because they underestimate the risk or because they are just willing to accept otherwise bad trades to quickly rack up some extra damage while they still can (before the match ends in seemingly inevitable victory). TL&DR: In losing matches it's not uncommon to see lots upon lots of hp left (by your allies) just for you to take AND all that hp being delivered (by your enemies) straight to you in an easy to digest manner. Literally leading to a situation where you can get more damage BECAUSE your team is losing, and badly.
  8. eliastion

    PLEASE unify the consumables hotkeys

    YET. No ship has them yet. Adding a ship that would have both is as simple as WG deciding that they want a ship with such a gimmick, it's no different than introducing literally any other consumable combination. Similarly no ship so far has both torpedo and main battery reload, for that matter. Of course. Not a chance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier Radar was long considered a cruiser-only consumable. Now we have it on DDs and BBs, and not even just premium ones. Actually, no. This is an extremely minor issue but since I'm already pointing out things as I'm reading through your post: no. The key you're talking about only exists in some very specific keyboard layouts and not in others. But spread in a ridiculous manner in all directions - barely any improvement over stretching very far to the right. And sure, don't get me wrong: there would be a (really, REALLY tiny) minority that actually would prefer this layout, plus probably a slightly more numerous bunch of people that would try wrestling with re-binding that into something useful for them (not necessarily an easy thing to do unless you can switch off collisions and combine multiple consumables under one key). Problem is: this tiny minority simply doesn't warrant the effort. There are much simpler options on the table (and even they seem to be rotting in the freezer due to lack of resources WG would be willing to spare on them). It's not adding more consumable slots that's the problem, though. That, yes, is pretty easy (unless the original implementation was REALLY f*cked up). Problem is, you're changing how the slots relate to consumables and to UI. THAT is where the issues arise. I can only assume you've never had to program anything more complicated than "Hello World". And you DEFINITELY never had to work on maintenance of any slightly more robust code written by someone else (and don't get me started on codebase written by many people).
  9. eliastion

    PLEASE unify the consumables hotkeys

    You didn't. You excluded DCP for no valid reason (it still needs a key binding whether it's unified already or not) AND you failed at counting the other consumables. You didn't. Or rather - you tried but you don't know what you're talking about and don't seem to understand that things being simple on conceptual level doesn't mean they are equally easy to implement. Neither. You were just wrong.
  10. eliastion

    PLEASE unify the consumables hotkeys

    Depending on implementation it might not be as easy as you present it, but yes, the options of ship-by-ship keybinding or ship-by-ship consumable slots re-arrangement seem like they should be RELATIVELY easy to implement with relatively little risk of introducing bugs to controls AND useful to relatively large number of players. Which is why most people are pushing for one of these two and if I'm not mistaken, WG even acknowledged that demand... but they don't put much priority on things like these, unfortunately. Other relatively simple stuff people are constantly asking ("demount all signals" and signal pre-sets for quick bulk mounting, for example) takes forever to get any further than "yeah, would be nice, certainly something we could add when we have some free resources" acknowledgement from WG... And these are actually much easier (especially the "demount all" button that kinda sounds like the kind of UI addition that could be coded in by an intern over one afternoon).
  11. eliastion

    PLEASE unify the consumables hotkeys

    The fact that a consumable is already unified doesn't exclude it from the list. And the 11 are WITHOUT carrier consumables already. The list is as follows: - DCP - repair party - catapult fighter - spotting aircraft - smoke generator - engine boost - main battery reload booster - torp reload booster - hydro - defensive AA - radar 11 altogether. Some don't appear in combinations on these same ships... YET. Combining them under one key would, however, introduce technical barriers for setting consumable combinations in the future and, as we know, uncommon consumable combinations are one of WG's core ideas about creating branches or even specific ships (premium or otherwise) that stand out. Again, that's not a minor change - because (again) you need to re-implement the current behavior for the new system (both for in-game and port UI) to be compatible with existence of the system based on "unused" slots. You solved nothing. Once again - just letting the player re-arrange slots is significantly easier and yet it's still not something WG is willing to spend resources on implementing. Despite people requesting this pretty regularly. Go and guess what are the chances of a MUCH more "niche" solution that requires more work (more resources) to implement.
  12. eliastion

    PLEASE unify the consumables hotkeys

    This solution isn't simple. There's 11 different consumables currently in the game (plus plane consumables but they're irrelevant here) so the result would definitely be clunky; what it means is: it's a feature that would help only a very small minority of players. This is an important consideration when we're talking about adding new features to the game. And the problem is: it seems like something easy to introduce, but it's unlikely to be. For one, you'd need a bit of a UI re-design but, more importantly, there would be a need of a hard to estimate (without looking into the code) change in internal mechanics of consumable activation. Basically, currently it seems like you're activating slots rather than consumables contained within - the "simple solution" you suggest requires a change in that logic, decoupleing consumables from slots (while still keeping the option to select between several allowed but mutually exclusive consumables AND kinda still keeping/re-creating the old mechanic as the default setting). Your solution is simple on basic conceptual level but, more likely than not, it would actually end up surprisingly complicated to implement, requiring quite a bit of developer work. Probably significantly more than simple ability to re-arrange (or key-bind) slots on ship-by-ship basis. And while the latter would be welcome by a lot of people , your idea would be a relatively niche one, making for a pretty unfavorable cost-benefit calculation for the developers.
  13. Yeah, the penalties for ramming each other are terrible ...less fun if you collide with an ally that had 50hp to begin with, that gets you marked as team killer. But normally it's more like the game shouting at you to STOP TOUCHING EACH OTHER DURING BATTLE.
  14. eliastion

    PLEASE unify the consumables hotkeys

    This has been answered time and time again. Unification is not possible because the key bindings would've ended up all over the keyboard. There are a lot of combinations of consumables. Even looking at just a couple related ships you can often spot problems. Let's take, say, IJN DDs. - Akizuki has smoke, speed boost and torp reload - Shimakaze only has smoke and speed boost - Shiratsuyu only has speed boost and torp reload (I think there is a smoke config but people don't really use it since the ships's main perk is the ability to launch 16 torps at t7) With these three ships we already need to introduce a gap somewhere. If we want Shima's consumables to be next to each other, then TRB configuration of Shiratsuyu is going to have an empty slot where Shima has smoke. If you want Shiratsuyu's consumables to be consolidated, then Shima is going to have a gap in TRB slot. And you can't put TRB and smoke in the same slot because Akizuki has both. You could say "well, one gap is not that big of a problem". And you'd be right. But this was just one conflict arising from just Japanese DDs. Once you throw in more ships, things only grow more complicated. Especially when you include special cases lake premiums with uncommon consumable combinations as their main quirk. There's just no way to reconcile all that. There are no consumables that could be put in the same slot because for all of them there either is a ship that has both or at least there's a possibility that WG might want to make one in some point in the future. Literally the only thing WG could do is give players an option to assign the order (or key bindings directly) on ship-by-ship basis. And I think it was even acknowledged by them somewhere - just not considered a priority, not by a long shot.
  15. eliastion

    Spotting System Range

    Island huggers (the cruisers that just get deleted if caught in the open) would be screwed but imagine BBs trying to hit anything if you include an extra penalty against things they don't spot themselves And as for the most notable smoke HE spammers (DDs)... They tend to shoot from relatively close and at relatively big enemy ships, bad dispersion wouldn't change THAT much. On the other hand: they are relatively small so enemies would find it harder to punish them if they get radared or something.
×