Jump to content

eliastion

Players
  • Content Сount

    4,341
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    11248
  • Clan

    [TOXIC]

About eliastion

  • Rank
    Commodore
  • Insignia
    [TOXIC]

Recent Profile Visitors

1,136 profile views
  1. eliastion

    Explain to me

    Unless they are not completely alone
  2. eliastion

    Your favorite DD: Tier for tier

    t2 - v25 - stealthiest around, has great torps and, since I don't really play other German ships (other than an occasional Bismarck coop match for some secondary hits mission), now she has a AL tsundere loli at the helm. Great fun when I'm in the mood for the ultimate dirty sealclubbing experience. t3 - - t4 - - t5 - Kamikaze R - them torps t6 - - t7 - Shiratsuyu or Błyskawica, but they got powercreeped hard t8 - Akizuki - a one-trick pony but I have a lot of sentiment for her AND she really is THE best around in her specialty. Also surprisingly capable in self-defense against planes, as long as we're not talking a t10 CV t9 - Kitakaze - great gunboat (basically a stealthier, faster Akizuki) with decent capabilities in other areas (the cooldown on torps+TRB is similar and its ridiculously long but, when it counts, a 12-torp wall of skill is a great option to have). t10 - Shimakaze - although I haven't really played t10 DDs much since the CV rework; still, with CVs fading back into obscurity, it shouldn't be much different compared to the pre-rework experience. Also, no, I don't exactly consider Shima powerful, she's too inconsistent... but the occasional devastating strike on a t10 BB - so satisfying.
  3. eliastion

    Does current CV gameplay lack skill aspect?

    Well, for starters, your experience - as described - has little to do with the "skill". What you experience is a subjective lack of interaction with the enemy players NOT lack of skill aspect. And answering the poll question is, actually, really, REALLY easy. Does CV gameplay lack skill aspect? No, it does not. This can be stated as an objective fact because the effects good CV players get are consistently leagues ahead of the effects bad (or even average) players get. It's too consistent to be luck, it happens regardless of which CV you pick for comparison, the difference is substantial and doesn't disapppear if you only look at solo matches, eliminating the division factor. Since some people can consistently perform much better than some others, this is proof enough that the skill factor is prominent. Now, when talking about interaction - the thing you actually have problem with even if you don't realize that - things get a bit less one-dimensional. And the reason why subjectively the interaction between CVs' and other ships' players might seem lacking is because a lot is decided before the direct confrontation even starts. What it means is that most of the interaction in regards to a CV airstrike takes place at the stage of mind-games and positioning chess long before the CV commits to said air strike. WoWs is a game where positioning and situational awareness matter a lot but perhaps nowhere is it as evident as in CV gameplay AND anti-CV gameplay. The moment the CV planes enter an attack run is merely a culmination, at that point there's still some room for adjustments, consumable use and/or fiddling with sector reinforcement, but the most important part of the interaction is already over. It's a bit like the ambush play by a DD - the moment a DD pops up from around an island 3km ahead of the approaching BB, there's relatively little for either of them to do to change the outcome. While a CV isn't nearly as generously rewarded for a good attack nor nearly as badly punished for messing up, the point is: the main part of the interaction isn't the attack itself nor the last-moment countermeasures but the previous efforts to single out a viable target on one side and positioning in a way that doesn't allow "cheap" airstrikes on the other (you can't really avoid airstrikes completely but it the enemy, say, loses a bunch of planes to land 1-2 torps on a BB, then the attack probably hurts them more than the target in question...
  4. eliastion

    Map boarder

    You said that you want them to be forcefully stopped and turned away. The thing most players do when they hit the border is try as best they can to maintain what little speed they have, however. What's more, you want all that automated, so the ship is as predictable as it gets - forget attempts at preserving any sort of angling, forget the ability to actually make sure that you turn AWAY (so that you don't find yourself charging at the enemy fleet the moment you leave the border). The only way to do something about it is to control the automated process by controlling the angle at which you hit the border... which is precisely what is NOT happening when you end up on the border by mistake (by definition, not a well controlled maneuver). Hence, in your drive to prevent people from abusing the border (something that doesn't really happen anyway) you're just inflicting painful punishment on people who just find themselves running out of map and hitting the border in an unplanned manner. Well, that might be what you want, not what your suggestions would do. Basically, you're creating problems to solve one that doesn't really exist.
  5. eliastion

    [Poll] AA sector reinforcement, are you using it efficiently?

    Absolutely crucial on DDs with decent AA (even with no def. AA and no manual AA to make it matter even more). Very useful for cruisers (especially with manual AA). For BBs it's a bit unwieldy... but since I play almost no BBs, this issue doesn't really hurt me You're switching too late. If from the enemy approach you expect the planes to pass over you, you should switch the sector while they're still closing in. As for CVs, they could benefit from sector switching but since you can't do that from the plane view... unless you're the island-parking type, there's usually no point as air raids aren't dangerous enough to abandon your planes AND 100-100 is, obviously, more universal when you lack the ability to adjust your reinforcement.
  6. eliastion

    Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

    Actually, the number of divisions per team can't differ by more than 1. Anyway, this is pretty irrelevant because the divisions are really only as good as the players in them. Just counting divisions is worthless. A 3-people division from one of the top clans is a force to behold. A 3-people division full of 40% potatoes is half of a defeat before the match even starts. And in the particular screenshot provided... 3xShimakaze division AND a 3BB division? Good players almost never division like that UNLESS they are playing for the lolz (like, say, their plan being to flood the map with 20km torps launched from 3 shimas - not to win but to see how much mayhem they can cause). So chances are, the enemy team is at a disadvantage with 6/12 players likely being either potatoes or not playing seriously. And 3 of these are in DDs (DD divisions limit the team tactically because then one flank gets all these divisioned DDs and the other is starved for DDs) even if they were decent and played seriously. I have no idea what clans these divisions are from and how good the players within them are, but just looking at the match-up... my money would be on the team with only that lone 2-person div
  7. eliastion

    Do we keep Early Access XP?

    This is just a standard line that applies to all elite and premium ships (ships that are fully researched). Since early access ships don't have any researchable modules AND can't be used to research the next ship in line (as there's no line yet), they also count towards your eligible-for-conversion XP. What? No. It's not that. It's just that the XP "bound" to this ship - since there's nothing to research on her - can be converted to freeXP for doublons.
  8. Well, with enough mental gymnastics every piece of sh*tty design can be claimed to be good by saying "oh, the designer MEANT it to suck". After all, we don't sit in the heads of people who design things. Still, when I see a bad design, I tend to assume that it's just a crappy design rather than something designed to be crap. To invoke Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. And, especially looking at not just the other missions WG designs but also the other parts of this particular mission chain, it definitely just looks like a simple case of bad mission where they unwittingly stacked too many conditions (class, nation, tier) on top of the main goal that lately became much harder than they probably expected (these missions are designed in advance and it's quite likely that they just assumed a CV in almost every battle back then - something that by now has became a fantasy).
  9. No. You're right that it's a grind - but it's a badly designed one. You can have well-designed (or acceptably well designed) grinds like - kill X ships (at worst it can lead to a bit more kill-chasing than usual) - deal X fire damage - win X battles - get X baseXP - kill X planes in a CV All of these are grinds. They can even be extreme grinds if the time for the mission is short and the X big. And RNG and matchmaking do play some part in that as well - after all, fire damage relies on RNG-governed fire chance, baseXP relies heavily on your team actually winning the game, not to mention the victory grind... still, player has a lot to say in all that. In the end, the grind requires you to play (a lot), and play more than they usually would... without impacting negatively the experience of the grinding player and/or the other participants (that either finished the grind or never cared for it to begin with). But there are the grinds that fail at the "not impacting negatively" part. Grinds that frustrate players and/or have noticeable (negative) impact on what the other players experience as the result of someone actively grinding. And these badly designed grinds can come with many flavors: - kill X Pan-Asian ships (targets line(s) that aren't very prevalent, ensuring that most matches just won't count at all before they even start; also ensures bad experience for players that do try to play the ships in question, creating bad experience for them - although good players probably can abuse the extra attention to give their teams a better chance of winning; still, most "targets" will have a worse time, further driving the numbers down) - kill X planes - only for non-CVs of specific nations and tiers (requires you to pick very specific ships and then rely on MM luck to even get a chance at progressing) - score X torpedo hits in BBs and cruisers (gives a strong incentive to play in a sub-optimal manner since very few cruisers and none BBs should be actively looking for chances to torp the enemies rather than keep torps as a situational weapon for specific circumstances that might - but usually wont - arise during the match)
  10. eliastion

    Map boarder

    So why do you want to punish them? A fast ship that hits the border and starts sliding becomes a slow ship really fast. And a dead one as well if the enemies' aim is worth anything, while we're at it.
  11. The point isn't "difficulty", though. You'll notice that there are relatively few people complaining about difficult and/or grindy requirements. Lots of (some specific kind of) damage or kills? Many victories? Loads of base XP? huge amount of baseXP in a single battle? People don't complain much about requirements like these. I won't say "not at all" but not much. Things change when the requirement starts depending heavily on things outside of player's control. Killing ships of a specific "surface" class is passable as there are ships of each class every match. But there are requirements that are much more problematic - and killing planes in ships that are not CVs is one of them. Basically, before you can even start shooting at the planes, you need two requirements met - both of which you have almost no control over 1. You need to meet an enemy CV 2. That CV needs to attack you or someone close to you You can try and division up with someone asking them to pick a CV AND then sail alone like an idiot while giving away your position whenever possible to try and present an inviting target, but that's a pretty roundabout way of doing things. If you're a solo player and have no intention of playing like an idiot, you need to get lucky. And when you combine that requirement with very strict requirements in regards to classes, nations AND tiers allowed, so that you can't just stick to the ships you are grinding/like to be playing in hopes that ultimately the luck will just smile your way? This makes it just a badly designed mission. Not a HARD mission, let me emphasize. A BADLY DESIGNED one. Because, let's face it, it's not a hard mission where you can get a Cleveland and have the mission done within the first match without even managing your sector reinforcement and def. AA properly. Then again, you can get the same Cleveland, give her full AA spec, manage your consumables well and go through 10 consecutive matches shooting one scout plane because there was like 1 CV match among these 10 and the CV in question spawned on the other side of the map and never got their planes within your AA range. Difficulty that requires the player to perform well to overcome it is ok for missions. "Difficulty" that requires the player to try again and again to get lucky - not so ok.
  12. eliastion

    Key Mapping

    As for remapping itself, it's possible in the settings (see @Excavatus's post). As for the mapping of consumables... I can answer to the "why not make them consistent" question. It boils down to the fact that there are many different combinations of consumables. Imagine that we assign consistent keys: Speed boost - always T Smoke - always Y Torpedo reload - always U Akizuki would then have consumables under keys T,Y,U But a Kagero with torpedo reload would have only T and U consumables with Y left empty. Of course you could swap smoke and torpedo reload keys but if you did THAT then you'd end up with Smoke Kagero (and other non-TRB DDs) lacking the Y consumable instead - so you're not solving any problems (rather making it worse). And these are just two ships of the same class and nation. Once you add other classes with their myriad of consumable configurations, you'd find yourself running out of keys on the RTYUIOP line and some ships would have gaping holes between their relevant consumable keys. This is why consistent consumable->key mapping is not possible. What could (and should, and has been repeatedly requested) happen is the ability to swap consumables between slots for every ship. So, if you have an Akizuki with DCP, Smoke, Engine Boost and TRB, you could just drag-and-drop which one goes where, allowing an slot1 (default R) DCP slot2 (default T) Smoke slot3 (default Y) Engine Boost slot4 (default U) Torpedo Reload Booster slot5 (default I) N/A but also, if it suited you better and was more consistent with your preferred arrangement for other ships slot1 (default R) DCP slot2 (default T) Engine Boost slot3 (default Y) Torpedo Reload Booster slot4 (default U) N/A slot5 (default I) Smoke Hopefully we'll see something like this one day. So far WG doesn't seem enthusiastic about committing any resources to development of this much needed UI improvement, however
  13. eliastion

    Map boarder

    They don't. Because instead of giving you an advantage, fair or not, it messes you up. You might find yourself benefiting from edge-surfing ship's erratic behavior once a blue moon, mainly at the very moment you hit the border, but overall you're at a huge disadvantage for running out of map and getting you engine messed up so you can't even unglue yourself from the border in any sort of reasonable time. The one situation where map border can give you something resembling consistent (ab)usable advantage is the plane-ship interaction when either a CV uses the border to bounce planes back from it in a super-tight turn or when a ship uses it to cover their side from planes by sailing near to it. Neither of these is relevant to the issue of how ships are treated for touching the border.
  14. eliastion

    The Great Naval Battle Manipulation

    Either it isn't (and you just feel that way subjectively) or it's because you're more conscious of that, causing you to play worse. There's little reason to believe anything else and - most notably - there's just nothing to be gained for WG by rigging matches to prevent people from clearing XP bars. That's extra algorithms that someone would have to come up with and implement - just to do something that generates no value. Why would WG be wasting money like this?
  15. eliastion

    Graf Zepplin Torpedo dmg nerf

    Well, it changes the amount of doublons on your account, so there's that Or the amount of freeXP and credits if you inventory->sell the silver ships. Basically, the point of selling things - as opposed to throwing them away - is to get something in return for them.
×