Jump to content
Game server issue - possible disconnects Read more... ×


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About eliastion

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,612 profile views
  1. eliastion

    Messed up matchmaking

    Well, I think people somewhat did. People were complaining about t8 - they didn't think that fixing t8 would f*ck t7 up though. It is sad though, my Błyskawica and Shiratsuyu are rusting in port - when they were often top tier, things were working out, but Błyskawica struggles against higher tier gunboats with both better cncealment and firepower than her, forcing her into much more passive playstyle. And Shira... well, a fragile DD without smoke really gets the short end of the stick once you negate her stealth advantage with the extra -10% concealment available to higher tiers...
  2. eliastion

    Messed up matchmaking

    The really sad thing is when you see stealth-based t7 DDs facing t8+ gunboats that match their concealment thanks to the extra upgrade slot...
  3. This is not quite true. What you describe would be the case if torp targets were stationary and torps only ever dropped at minimum possible distance. Neither of the two is the case. Faster torps are harder to dodge, they're more effective if dropped diagonally from behind, they hit faster (and therefore more surely) if the target turns away and they faster cover the "buffer" you need to add when dropping (unless you want them to become duds every time someone decides to try and turn into them). Can also be useful in some special cases when, say, you want to add even more distance due to heavy AA - since, again, torps cover any extra distance that much faster. So no. The torp speed increase is far from useless. It actually lets you hit more consistently, noticeably more so - and this isn't just theoretical analysis, it's also the conclusion I got from actually trying out builds both with and without TA. It was a long time ago but I'm pretty sure this particular bit of mechanics funstions the same. Of course, TA has its downsides. It's usually better to have more range and in some situations the extra arming distance can affect you negatively, depending on circumstances. These are both very situational downsides, however, while the advantages of faster torps help you pretty consistently. Whether you consider it worth the points is your decision, but saying that the skill is a nerf rather than a buff is just factually wrong. At the very worst you could say that there's a trade-off - but the downsides are so small and situational that, frankly, I'd hesitate to call it that.
  4. eliastion

    Unique Upgrades - which are you still using?

    My problem isn't with the description being faulty, but with a simple question: who would possibly pick this now over GFCS Mod 2? Zao doesn't have a dispersion problem and the shell arcs are good enough that the extra bit of range actually helps. Rudder shift was precisely what used to set the IB apart, allowing a more aggressive gameplay. If they really felt the need to nerf the module, the rudder shift was precisely the one part they should NOT have touched. Reducing range a bit or lowering/removing dispersion buff would be more reasonable, since it would affect long-range playstyle more, emphasizing the more aggressive nature of this mod. The way it is now? How many people are going to pick 7% reduced dispersion over another 8% of range on a ship forced back into spamming HE at max range, since you can't really get close with a combination of Zao's rudder and armor?...
  5. eliastion

    Twitch Prime Loot

    One thing to try - and the first one you're probably going to hear from support - is to: 1. Log-out from your account. 2. Clear cache and cookies (just going to another web browser could do the trick too). 3. Log into the account using Amazon button (you'll be prompted for your Amazon credentials and log in through these) ...that being said, this stuff didn't work for me. In the end they had to manually credit my account with the rewards I should've gotten. Well, I ended up getting the goods in the end, so I guess this counts as good news for you, especially if - like me - you're just doing a one-time stunt with trial prime If you have - or plan to have - a permanent prime account to gather the goods periodically, then things are trickier. If the first batch of rewards never finds its way to your account, there's a good chance that the sense of direction of the subsequent rewards in coming months won't be any better...
  6. We can't. WoT has a very different skill system - in WoWs you have a captain XP cap and then XP goes to the special captain XP pool that can then be used to train, re-spec and move around captains. It's basically a less versatile but much easier to acquire kind of free XP. At the very least you get the amount equivalent to the normal XP you gained from the battle, including all XP bonuses. Basically, "all experience goes to crew" from the moment you acquire a ship - and when the captain is maxed out, this XP can actually be freely moved around between captains... Introducing the option to redirect ship xp into that pool on top of that isn't really compatible with the system we have.
  7. Frankly, I'd be happy with a much simpler change: if you hit "respec" on a captain, this one captain's skill points should remain fluid for 24h. So that you can try some combinations and you're free of the threat of misplacing a lot of captain XP away with one-two clicks (happened to me once that I picked a wrong skill by mistake during respeccing a 19 point captain - fortunately I had to re-set again only around half of that, but it was still a stupid waste of xp...) The nice thing about this solution is that it wouldn't really cost WG anything. People don't really re-spec the same captain more than once in 24h - and with the added flexibility we'd probably see more rather than less respecs. It hurts to spend 200k captain XP or 500 doublons to change the skills, especially if you're not 100% certain about the change. Now, if I knew I can change things, check how the experimental build (say, a strange firestarter Kitakaze with DE instead of IFHE) works out, check a couple other options (say, Kita with both IFHE and DE in place of SE) and go back to the standard build if I don't like any of the other ones? I'd be much more likely to play around with my builds from time to time...
  8. eliastion

    A toxic community

    Oh, so THAT is the way it's supposed to be played. I've been doing it wrong all along!
  9. eliastion

    A toxic community

    Well, the community sure is toxic, but judging by your post I get a feeling - call it a hunch if you will - that you're not exactly lowering the average toxicity level... I mean, sure, I could be wrong as I'm trying to extrapolate your in-game behaviour from a single rant-post. It's perfectly possible that you are, in fact, the very picture of calm, understanding and good manners in the team chat. That being said, a post built around a message to your perceived bullies that could be summed up as "if you're going to insult me for playing badly, then you better go die hit by a truck" (even if worded significantly more eloquently, props for the descriptive way you put it) doesn't really build that much confidence in your ability to keep the heat level in chat to the minimum. For myself, let me just give you a piece of advice: That's it, really. It's a game. A competitive team-based game - not necessarily in the sense "competitive" is often used in gaming, but rather in the most basic sense: you're competing against other players. And playing in a team. Of course this invokes emotion - that's precisely where big part of enjoyment comes from. The game is fun mostly - not only, but mostly - because victory means overcoming the opposition, accomplishing something. The downside of it is that when things go south, people get angry. You lack control over your allies' actions so, when you see them f*cking up (regardless of whether you're even right in that assessment), you get angry at them. It's pretty much inevitable in a game that someone is going to tell someone else what a piece of sh*t player they are, especially since a degree of anonymity inherent to online games removes a couple layers of filter between the mind and the mouth (or, well, fingers). It's vital to grow a slightly thicker skin and learn to not take things like these too personally. It's a game and these are random people that won't affect your life no matter how angry they get at you - and their fit of anger isn't even really directed at you personally, they are angry about something you did or didn't do (or even projecting anger over their own f*ck-up)... it's a brief fit of emotion. One another match starts, they probably won't remember your nick. The next day they are likely to all but have forgotten about your existence altogether. And that, really, is a pretty good way to deal with it from your side as well. And, of course, you can try and get better at the game - that helps one to find themselves on receiving end of insults less often. That being said, "less often" is very far from "never", so even a deep purple unicum needs some level of tolerance to enjoy the game.
  10. eliastion

    Update 0.9.7 – German Carriers: Part 2

    Among all the arguments in favor of CVs, this is clearly the dumbest one. Sure, you could have a game where the relative power of ships is more preserved. Only then the research/economy would need to follow a completely different model. You'd need to play hard for many months to get your hands on a proper CV - and if you happened to lose it, that would be it, because ships wouldn't magically respawn after paying a small fee. Both CVs and BBs would be powerful, sure, but they'd be rarely seen because their role would be to let you flex how much time (or very real money - think thousands of dollars) you've spent just to have one...
  11. eliastion

    Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

    Just for clarity's sake: what do you mean when you say "skill-based matchmaking"? Two general interpretations come to mind. I doubt you'd be happy with either of them, however. Assuming, that is, that you really are a good player that carries hard (as you claim), hate having bad teams (as most people) and that you like and care about winning (as seems to be the case based on you talking about winrates rather than, idk, low XP gained from lost battles). So, what is it that you'd like to see as "skill-based matchmaking"?
  12. There is more than one factor that could explain that (or rather be part of the explanation). What comes to mind as, probably, the most important is: better players play more. Or players with more practice play better, the cause and effect direction isn't important in this case. How it affects the average statistics can be explained on an artificial example: imagine 1v1 game with 10 players. The best player plays one match against each of the other players, results being: Player #1: 9 matches, winrate 100%. Players #2-9: 1 match, 0% winrate. The average winrate = 10% Obviously, in WoWs it's much more nuanced, games aren't 1v1, there are a lot of bots (or players that play like bots) that spam battles and suck a lot - and we do have some re-rolls that get great WR despite having few matches. But overall, the correlation between number of battles and performance is positive and - in turn - contributes to below 50% average winrate. There are also, of course, other factors - and many of them would actually drag the average up. But there's nothing too strange in them not evening out completely and the average ending up shifted away from 50% as a result.
  13. eliastion

    General CV related discussions.

    I kind of assumed that if they're thinking of pulling ridiculous stunts like the one mentioned there, it surely MUST mean that they already did everything that made some modicum of sense (and it didn't work). Oh well.
  14. eliastion

    General CV related discussions.

    Wait, this still works on planes? I haven't played for a long time and didn't pay attention in that one or two CV games after returning, but do I understand you correctly? WG is seriously working on idiotic 1,5 aerial visibility for DDs, coupled with 20second AA bloom to offset that - and they're doing that while they still have yet to remove the "look, you've found a DD, it's somewhere near" warning from planes!?
  15. eliastion

    General CV related discussions.

    DDs with good AA are going to be frustrated because opening fire will have more "permanent" effects and they'll still feel like CVs ruin their lives anyway, DDs with bad AA will still sh*t their pants at the sight of planes, CVs are going to be frustrated about being blind as bats, spotting DDs only after passing the distance from which they should be launching rockets. This way, everybody's equally happy