Jump to content

eliastion

Players
  • Content Сount

    4,795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    12260
  • Clan

    [TOXIC]

About eliastion

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,946 profile views
  1. eliastion

    Big Hunt: the Raid Begins

    And I just sit here being sad that Akizuki's special camo is so ridiculously ugly. I have nothing agains purple neon glowing parts - ARP Kongo looks nice. A rough industrial metal/dieselpunk look can have its charm as well. But who the hell thought that combining the two would be a good idea!?
  2. eliastion

    Possible Zao / Hindy build

    This is a bit besides the point, but you might want to reconsider running the Zao's legandary module. It got nerfed and - compared to simple range upgrade - you're now only getting a bit lower dispersion, no rudder improvement.
  3. I don't actually hate that part - but it's what makes the old TA and the new TA two completely different skills. Old TA was a very specialised skill, somewhat similar to IFHE: very useful for the ships that need it, useless or worse for most others. You get something with super-slow torpedoes but excess range you rarely use? TA to the rescue! Your range is NOT excessive and/or your torpedo speed is acceptable already? This will likely be more of a downgrade. New TA is the opposite: it fits literally every torpedo-armed ship as long as you find spare points in your build. It benefits everyone - but it's not such a game-changer, since the effective % bonus doesn't increase for slower torps (some ships with infamously slow torpedoes were in for an over 10% speed increase with the old TA). Basically, TA used to be a heavy-impact skill for several select ships with unbalanced torpedo characteristics... and a noob trap for everyone else. Now it's a viable, universal torpedo-enhancing skill of the "tweak your ship to your preferences" variety - it will always help but don't count on it to make up for WG not giving your tub of death a torpedo choice with better balanced characteristics.
  4. eliastion

    The Kitakami returns!

    I just wish these things were only available to seasoned DD players, because the "killed more frendlies than reds" part will likely make a big comeback...
  5. You know what... I think I'll have to try a Shimemekaze with TA slapped on F3 configuration. Normally I vastly prefer 12km torps for their versatility, but when I picture 3x5 21k damage torps travelling at 83 knots? "Shimakaze's torpedoes are easy to dodge", they said
  6. Damn, you made me dream. Imagine a survivability skill that reduces direct shell damage depending on the distance from the shooter. Some... idk, the values would need testing and tweaking, but I'd imagine something in the ballpark of 3% at 15km +1% per km below that. Nothing too OP, but an obvious, easy to understand boost to survivability of a pushing BB...
  7. eliastion

    Indirect Fire

    The mechanic in question makes vision game more important and facilitates the use of islands. Putting it simply: the game is more varied in possible tactics - and better. While it wouldn't be the first time for WG to "fix away" something that makes the game better, it's hardly a surprise that they don't do that. Also, on another note: thread necromancy after five f*cking years!? It's not even "almost", as you say - the last post on the thread was February 6 2016. It's February 7 2021 now. Maybe still 6 depending on the timezone, but that still makes for a full 5 years...
  8. eliastion

    HE-AA interaction needs to be adressed

    Well, the first part isn't true (there are specific few CVs that barely give a f... but this isn't true for most, at least in higher tiers). That being said, the permanent AA damage has been an issue for a long time - because CVs have a strange power curve (getting more powerful as the match progresses, unless they manage to waste all the planes early on) by their very nature. This is basically impossible to change - so it would only make sense to adjust the mechanics that CAN be adjusted to reduce this effect, not reinforce it. AA mounts sholdn't be permanently destructible - it should be possible to knock them out (maybe even for a relatively long time), so that dropping a ship engaged in combat or one that has just left it would be safer and more forgiving. But after a couple minutes AA should be back to full capability. Now, it might perhaps be lower - to reduce the blobbed AA potential at the start of the battle - but the point is that they should be able to count on that through the battle. As it is now, the only ships that retain most/all AA power 'till the end game are the backline campers, since they tend to be beyond the range of HE spammers.
  9. eliastion

    HE-AA interaction needs to be adressed

    Setting aside the issue about how many strikes post-rework CVs should be expected to deliver per sortie - the idea that permanently destructible AA is impossible to balance (and thus requires some changes) is older than the Glorious Rework. It was one of the things both surface ship and CV players complained about in the days of RTS CVs. Neither group appreciated CV power scaling into the late game when the effects of "less, more spread out ships" was combining with "less AA on ships" to make sure that at the start of the match DDs were the only viable target (full-AA ships could be a complete no-fly zones) while at the end CVs had free reign (some AA fortresses had potential to be stripped almost bare after some HE spam)... Anyway, as you can see, the feature has stayed with us for a loong time and remained untouched even when almost everything else about planes and AA was changed. WG seems to be REALLY attached to the concept of AA mounts dying from HE - and then staying dead for the rest of the battle. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to do anything about this...
  10. eliastion

    Why next update isn't v1.0.0.0?

    This is not how versioning of software works. The dots aren't there to make it easier to count the digits, they separate bigger and smaller revisions. There are some variations to the convention, but one thing to be said for sure is that dropping 1 at the beginning would never be caused by the number on the second place getting to some arbitrary big number. With 4-part version number and a product that isn't meant to be backwards compatible, the typical numbering could be probably deciphered more-or-less as follows: full_release_number - huge landmark . major_version - big change that fundamentally alters the game . minor_version - notable changes were made, some things are different . patch - tiny changes, maybe cosmetics, probably no noticeable functional changes, maybe with the exception of some hotfixes If there was concern for backwards compatibility, then "patch" would imply no functional changes, "minor version" would mean changes/additions that shouldn't break old compatibility/integration while "major version" might. So, basically, as long as you'd have the same "minor version", you probably shouldn't notice any difference and if you have the same "major version", difference might be noticeable, but shouldn't break anything from what was already working. Still, this convention isn't always adhered to that strongly AND in case of WoWs there seems to be the general assumption that everything runs on current version - which kind of frees the devs to have the numbers mean whatever they want them to mean. But it should still follow the overall pattern that you just increment the lowest applicable number until you reach a change/landmark that requires incrementation a step higher. As a result, most likely there would be two situations that might prompt bumping us to a version 1.0: a) The game changed in such a fundamental way that all the earlier changes were just a build-up. Perhaps if the engine got a complete overhaul or something like that? b) WG decided that "this is the TRUE release" and affirmed that everything before that was pretty much a very, very extensive open beta and now the game is in a final enough state to mark this transition with a "big version number 1". PS: Please note that the above is pretty general in nature. Originally just wanting to make my point that this is not a system where you go to 9 (or any other arbitrary number) and then automatically "move up the ladder" to the more meaningful digit. Unfortunately, I got careless and ended up writing quite a lot - but this doesn't mean that I performed an in-depth analysis of version numbering in WoWs, so bear in mind that this is still at the level of first impression based on my overall experiences with software numbering
  11. eliastion

    Will we ever be able to hide ARP ships?

    I'm not sure if you can, actually. I think I've seen someone's post with a reply that the ship has been sold before it became a premium, or something like that? It might be worth a try but I wouldn't hold my breath if someone actually sold them before the changes (including giving them camo effects).
  12. WG originates from the post-USSR countries (Belarus, more specifically). Also, your entire post strongly implies that you don't have a... let's mildly call it "a limited idea of what you are talking about". But let's leave it at that, this is hardly the place to delve into political stuff regarding who does or doesn't want communism (and/or what that would even mean in the first place).
  13. What irks people the most (at least around central and eastern Europe) isn't even the fact of shying away from the war-time symbols of German and Japanese navy, even though the latter is a bit silly since while Japan itself has changed its flag, Japanese navy marine self-defense force literally still flies the flag in question - so it's not historical, it's modern naval flag of a democratic country, making censoring it is a huge f*ck-you to the Japanese. Still, I'm not going to get offended on behalf of the Japanese here - what I (and, as mentioned, many people from central Europe) have the bigger problem with is that the other totalitarian regime - just as bad as the banned two - is cuddled and cherished, its blood-stained symbols emphasized F*CKING EVERYWHERE. It would be ok if all these symbols were "banned". It would be ok if German and Soviet symbols were "banned", with Japanese being exempt from that due to being modern symbols that don't just stand for the specific dark period in history. Finally, it would be ok (and that would be my personal preference) if all these symbols were allowed as historical symbols that simply belong on historical ships... But "banning" symbols of some criminal regimes while celebrating these belonging to another criminal regime is a clear statement by the company that "unlike the foreign monsters, OUR criminals are ok". Basically, through this particular discrimination when it comes to totalitarian symbols, Wargaming symbolically condones the monumental Soviet war crimes. Which is, you know, not very nice for some people from certain parts of Europe. Especially people who can, on personal level, just look into the history of their family and find a couple dead bodies with Soviet bullets in the back of the head. Happens to be the case for me, in fact - one family member was an officer taken POW and killed in Katyń, while another... well, let's just say that if Soviets were a bit more competent about catching civilians they wanted to murder, my chances of complaining here now would've been cut short two generations ago. But sure, let's celebrate the hammer and sickle while banning Swastika and Rising Sun! Uncle Stalin was such a great guy!
  14. eliastion

    ARRGGHHH !!!

    Always has been.
  15. eliastion

    Something weird going on with my guns

    Pink is not a penalty, it's a warning. You only get relegated to Co-op once you become orange and that takes an extra bit of work Pink just gives you a nice color and, affects the way team damage is distributed between you and your "target", although I'm not 100% sure about the specifics (might be a 100% reflection but I'm not sure).
×