Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

About Ace42X

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ace42X

    Certain ships.....

    Surely this is no different to how you'd use the New Mexico's guns, which (while pretty far from my favourite guns in the game) I had no real problem using, compared to Normandies which simply wouldn't put enough shells on target when it counted? Thanks for sharing the vids though, was reassuring seeing all those 3k salvoes and 6x Overpen salvoes and realising it's not just me.
  2. Ace42X

    Certain ships.....

    I'm genuinely interested in how anyone can make the theoretical potential of that damage live up to its promise; as I am having all the same issues (unsurprisingly) that I had with the Normandie's guns. How do you stop the guns from richochetting, from over-penning, and from just dropping the shells in the water all around of what you're aiming at? Because whenever I catch a victim broadside in the Lyon - a victim that would just get dev-striked clean off the map if I were in any other nation's BBs (well, maybe not Italian BBs, which have the same problems) - instead of getting a 20k+ multi-cit death bonanza, I get at best a 10k salvo of maybe one cit, one full pen, one overpen. A "good" salvo in terms of accuracy on the Lyon is me getting 7 overpens for 6,700hp damage. That's not firepower that's setting my world ablaze, you know? And the HE didn't seem to be anything to write home about either – fire chance for 16 guns is disappointing if the shells just miss a lot, and stuff like Sinops don't seem to get penetrated by the HE consistently (although I seem to be starting fires with non-penetrating hits?). No matter how exposed and potatoey a broadside victim is, the Lyon just refuses to reward me with the dev-strikes I'd expect from any non- French/Italian boat.
  3. Ace42X

    Certain ships.....

    Russian BBs are OP. That's all there is to it. The way the tiers work and the breakpoints for armour and gun calibre and slots and matchmaking means some are better than others, but they're all stand-outs. Try playing a Lyon and see how the 16 guns do absolutely nothing the vast majority of the time against broadside potatoes, whereas the Sinop's front six wreck everything no matter the angle.
  4. It is a zero sum game in this context: All damage applied represents health lost by the enemy, ships killed by your team represents ships lost to the enemy team, there's no way for a team to both lose the game and win simultaneously, etc. This is complicated somewhat by how WN8 style systems weight things like damage - in WOWS not all damage is created equal - but even then the W/L ratio component of the calculations will help mitigate this, and even if some damage is less valuable than others - this only changes the value of any given piece of damage, not the underlying fact that it still represents (aggragate) health the enemy team no longer has access to. If, instead of WOWS, we were to look at coin-flips - we'd still end up with "red" and "purple" players based solely on where on the normal distribution curve of probabilities they happened to end up. Skill would be a non-issue in this example, and it should illustrated that if all the red players in the game were to "get gud" and so the entire playerbase ended up with identical skill levels in WOWS, just like with coin-flips we'd still have red and purple players based solely on coincidence.
  5. Surely common sense tells us that for every player with purple stats, there has to be someone eating that damage whose stats are proportionally worse? Even if every player had identical skill, you'd have to see some players with red stats because *both teams can't win* and draws are improbable.
  6. Ace42X

    Strange Turret Rotation

    I think it's a server desync issue - the turret just keeps doing its thing until the connection sorts itself out and it reaches a legitimate position.
  7. It shouldn't be too hard to understand what's going on, a lot of the factors at work are self-evident. A key factor is pay-to-win, which has a knock-on effect on every aspect of the game: My COs have more skillpoints because of time spent levelling up in premium ships; their skills aren't disabled for retraining because I can put them in premium ships or FXP them; the FXP and credits I earn in premium ships can let me skip stock modules, or slot upgrades, or slot combat-bonus camo. Historically players weren't slotting premium consumables to try and save credits. Now I'm regrinding my tech-tree lines for the Bureau, I'm bringing all these extra resources to bear (and potentially unique COs too) on low-tier players who don't have these advantages, and I'd be hard pushed to tell you if. Another factor is funky balance and power-creep: Players more interested in winning (the sort of people who care about objectively improving their game) are more likely to run meta builds on meta ships; players who are motivated by other factors (playing a specific historical ship even if it's UP / wanting to torpedo or citadel enemy ships in your cruiser than safely farm HE spam / wanting to see their secondaries roar / etc) that mean sub-optimal gameplay. Another element is mods: When I started I was playing the game vanilla; now I have a host of UI mods that provide me with a lot more information (I don't have to guess, intuit, memorise the speed of enemy players' ships because I have an info panel that just tells me, for example. Nomogram crosshair's way better than default dynamic. Etc, etc). Some players will never think about going to the trouble of installing mods. Some of it is down to sheer luck: Imagine hundreds of thousands of people betting on horse races – some people will correctly pick the winner of every single race; some will pick losers for every single race; many will pick an average number of winners vs losers, and of those some will pick losers first and then end with the winners, some will pick the winners first and end with the losers. This doesn't reflect them getting more or less skillful, or skill at all, because it's entirely down to luck. A large part of it is down to how elements of the game are counter-intuitive, and how feedback is obfuscated. To learn from a mistake people have to both recognise that a mistake was made, and have the mental capacity to interpret what happened to formulate an improved strategy. The assumption that the problem lies with the latter rather than the former cause is pejorative. If you're in a Richelieu and try to blap a broadside cruiser and its crappy gun handling means most of your shells miss, and the ones that hit either overpen or ricochet – what do learn from that? To exclusively spam HE all day every day? If you're running a Tirpitz and see its torps and above average secondaries and turtle-back, then intuitively you want to get stuck in to close range to use them, but as we know as experienced players, that's a noob-trap despite being entirely intuitive. I had to spend a fair bit of time in the armour-test practice room (itself hidden) getting a large sample size of battleship broadsides at different ranges before I felt comfortable saying "I'm not getting cits because the RNG is denying me them" versus "I'm not getting cits because of aim / angle / distance / gun calibre" – anyone with experience in the field of psychology will tell you that this is how superstitions are formed, when you're trying to determine cause-and-effect from what is a highly (or entirely) randomised system. The game doesn't always make its metagame clear: If your team lemming-trains, but the enemy team throws harder and loses, are you going to consider that win a mistake? If your initial paradigm is "safety in numbers; they'll sperad themselves too thin" you're going to - unconsciously or no - prefer evidence that promotes that assumption over "hey, we only win lemming train games if the enemy team lemming-trains harder / shits the bed". If you're the last man standing and your team lose on points; is that because you weren't aggressive enough and prioritised your survival over winning the match, or is it because your team threw so hard that the game was unwinnable despite you playing optimally? Because if you assume the former, you're going to play sub-optimally when you play more aggressively next game to compensate (getting worse, as your OP has it).
  8. Ace42X

    The Bayern and other hidden gems

    I remember disliking Bayern when I first played her: I found her to be an over-penning frustrating that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. I've been playing her recently, and been doing far better. Did she get her dispersion improved along with the higher tier German battleships? If so, that (combined with better CO and more resources to throw at it in terms of equipment) might explain a lot. Also found the Nassau is doing ridiculously well.
  9. I wonder if a mod could achieve this? I know a lot of H-games have English fan-sub overlays – if a mod could trigger output to a text-field overlay whenever a corresponding sound-file is played, we'd be sorted.
  10. Ace42X

    Belfast coming back...

    The easiest way to deal with it would be to adjust matchmaking tier spread based on a ship's power level (loosely WR, but other factors too, maybe some finger on the scales too) so that OP ships are bottom tier more often; UP / powercrept ships are top tier more often. It should be relatively straightforward to do this dynamically so that at least part of it self-adjusts as the meta / features change and performance alters over time.
  11. Ace42X

    Naval Base Update in 0.9.7

    Don't care about clans, don't care about the bribery trying to coerce me into joining one; am annoyed at the prospect of WGing nickel-and-diming players via the research bureau because they've got to claw all these BS freebies back whether it's from people getting free resources in a clan or not. And while we're on the subject, is there a way to block clan invites? I get spammed with them all the time.
  12. Ace42X

    PSA: How to keep your UBoats alive!

    There's games on live populated with bots despite this, and despite limited access. So yes, yes we can. So your solution to everyone getting subs at the same time and thus creating a population crisis is to get rid of a mechanism which does to some degree work, and instead ... hope enough people spend an inordinate amount of time in training rooms so as to not flood the event game-mode with one class of ship. Which would actually further divide the active game population further between the current game-modes and the event *and practice mode too*. Ooof.
  13. Ace42X

    PSA: How to keep your UBoats alive!

    You do realise it's implemented that way to stop everyone all getting them at the same time and thus making the game-mode exclusively populated by human submarine players, right? You know, like happened on the test server where the queue times were horrendous and matches had to be even more bot-filled than is happening now?
  14. Ace42X

    0.9.4 - Submarine battle

    With < 6.6km range on U-69 torps (the curve of homing torpedoes means you're not getting the full radius of range), you're not going to be achieving much sitting back - you can passively spot surface ships you have LoS to, but that's redundant as soon as they start shooting at team-mates and thus make their detection radii bloom. With Cachalot you're looking at <10.5km, which makes it possible to hold back a bit more, but you're still looking at the same maximum engagement radius as a Fubuki's torpedoes - and you're losing lethality because it's harder to land pings and easier to evade incoming torps at maximum distance from the sub. This is inevitable. 4x torps on the front of ship; 1 or 2 on back depending on the sub. If you want to make full use of your salvoes, you have to have the front of your ship (roughly) facing the enemy at some point; if you want to turn around, you have to throttle up whilst facing the enemy, make a ~600m turning circle at <26.3 kts while on the surface and thus restricted in your ability to ping undetected. If at any point you have to submerge (concealment's compromised, planes fly over, you want to escape RPF), your speed goes down to 18kts with consequent increase in time taken to do a 180 and get out of there. Even once you have completed your turn and got your stern facing an enemy, you're still only going to maintain distance to enemy if they're in the absolutely slowest of battleships. The enemy will catch up with you, and they will end up directly on top of you in order to escape your torpedo arcs and try and keep you proximity spotted. Generally when this happens, the issue isn't with the submarine CO, it's with the team surrendering / outright losing the flank and allowing the enemy to push in unopposed.
  15. Ace42X

    0.9.4 - Submarine battle

    IIRC RPF doesn't have any effect on submerged submarines at all, at present. Also, submerged boats should only provide "cyclone" style passive-spotting to team-mates (minimap only). Pinged targets being normally detected is maybe fine.