Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About EdiJo

Recent Profile Visitors

754 profile views
  1. EdiJo

    Playing WoW like WoT

    It could be easily implemented in the game. For example with accuracy penalty when shooting moving target, and with accuracy bonus when shooting reversing or stationary target. Radar should not only be screened by islands, but also an island in the background should prevent being detected. But also radar should detect planes from far far away. Visual or sonar detection should depend on speed. And so on so forth.. But the question is, can we talk about "firing solutions" when average Kevin in this game has real problem with hitting a barn from the inside.
  2. In 1940 their "war role" was quite very different. Although I agree, that the current "official" "Western" version of history heavily supported by Russia, which considers the war starting in 1941, does not deal with 1939-40 events too well. It would be the more educational to cause people to ask questions: "Dad, why is it my US/Soviet ship not included as Allies in this 1940 operation?". Yes. But still Błyskawica IRL had much stronger AA than Aigle, Gallant or Cossack. Aigle + Gallant are previous generation and Cossack (actually twin design for Błyskawica) didn't have Bofors 40mm, but much weaker British Mark VIII. BTW stats for Soviet 37mm guns on Minsk are in turn fantastically upped ;) Sims sunk 2 years after the scenario events... and received AA buff only shortly earlier. Gratz! Sure, very good player can squeeze good game from everything - but this doesn't change the point.
  3. EdiJo


    Balancing (for example, Giuseppe) is another issue than +/-2 matchmaking. Although you CAN'T balance any ship for 5-tier range properly, it is impossible without making all branches really similar. And MANY MANY MANY ships suffer from being uptiered, not only those "not very good" - because see above. Being top tier does not "compensate" anything, because being one of a few low tier cannon fodders is most often just a waste of time. For those who "want variety" and "need a challenge" I would leave as an OPTION to be able to join as -2. But not +2, sorry clubbers...
  4. Before you replied I edited my post to not sound like a question. Still, I don't think that neutral (US) or Germany-allied states (Soviet Union with Ribbentrop-Molotov alliance in full swing) should be included as Allies in this 1940 based scenario. Regarding upgrades and the current thread - I feel bad about that because Błyskawica has 1937 AA and other boats have 1943-44 which was a totally different point in warship AA development. So her AA is simply lacking, while historically it should be the best on the map. And in this scenario AA is (uniquely) very important. I took her for a ride a few times and rarely managed to shoot 20 planes, while US destroyers can manage 50+ and even crappy Minsk can easily do 30+.
  5. This is the question of balancing. BTW I always repeat that +/-2 MM should GO. I don't know how is MM for Błyskawica now, because I was so disappointed in what WG did to her that stopped playing the ship. But I see quite a few of them in high tier battles, where they struggle. We base our arguments on our own experience and on experience of a few friends, and on the statistics we can access (like maplesyrup). Some mythical secret WG data are not an argument at all - if they are not available to us, so we can comment on them. As far of course as WG considers us a partner for discussion - but otherwise this forum has not much purpose at all. I can't make Acasta and Icarus to work well, but I've seen that other people can. But you just water down the discussion, which here is about one particular ship situation vs her competition and meta. I don't think WG needs advocates here, I would just gladly hear about those statistics and arguments for buffing/nerfing some particular things. I think (I hope) this is not any secret.
  6. EdiJo


    They are afraid because player base is shrinking, especially on smaller servers. But instead of rescuing things by merging servers and making game more fun & fair, they insist on milking the cow as far as they can and plan to run away forward towards console kiddies. I am afraid so. Still, it doesn't change the fact that +/-2 MM is the most idiotic thing in this game, especially when throwing a few low tier boats into the high tier battle.
  7. Heh, but Minsk (which at that time was busy partitioning Eastern Europe according to German-Soviet pact and can be hardly even considered "Allied") is evidently OK. Even in 1944 AA configuration.
  8. It is getting boring. Reduction ad absurdum is not a good way of discussing things. Błyskawica is worse than average, especially considering that T7 DD often faces T8-T9 where she can't "outgun" things or "roam" too well. Concealment, rudder shift are not enough for that. BTW maybe T5-6 UK DD are also in a bad spot, or maybe I simply can't get along with them. We're talking here about T7 hybrid DD which was absolute top in real life but which in the game is not best (or even very good) in anything and suffers from being uptiered more than her competition.
  9. EU server hosted about half of all Błyskawica games played on all servers. And I don't think Polish players are enough to cause this, while for example more US DD games on the US server or more Soviet DD games on the RU server show clearly skewed statistics. So evidently you should focus on EU data here. Leningrad is just the extreme here. Most of the DD in the tier range which Błyskawica is matched to are stronger in the game. So you should nerf everything... and we abstract from balancing vs other tiers and classes here. Also, what you wrote here sounds quite out of sync with the news we receive regarding 0.8 patch, where buffs to Mahan and Sims (and Aigle, Kiev, Ognevoi, Udaloi) are announced. In the history-based game some relation to the historical facts should be preserved. Strong points of the ship IRL should be strong in the game. Weak points should be buffed ONLY if necessary to make ships able to fight their competition - for example reload or speed buff on Soviets should make them EQUALLY strong with other ships, not more powerful. For example, there is no "balancing" reason to keep Błyskawica AA worse than Sims (and not having option for defAA, for that matter) - in reality they were exactly identical (although Sims acquired its AA config somewhere in 1942, while the Polish ship had it in 1937). Obviously, Soviet boats should have AA weaker than both Sims and Błyskawica - currently there is funny thing: Minsk (even considering can have 1944 config for some reason...) is far more useful in Dunkirk scenario, for example. You did not respond what is the cause of Błyskawica having rudder shift time 2x longer than for some other same-tier destroyers. Please, explain, why the concealment is the worst of the tier, despite the ship being relatively small. Why torpedoes are the worst of the pack, despite IRL being exactly the same as those equipped on Terrible, Haida or Cossack. So far your worries about Błyskawica being OP are pure theory, because the ship (since a long time!) is way far behind all other competition in most aspects. The problem is the more severe that exactly those nerfed characteristics (concealment, torpedoes, rudder shift) are vital when facing typical uptiered matchmaking.
  10. EdiJo

    AFK people in start of a match

    I was talking about precautions with the emphasis on "pre". So if something happens after several games you restart the software (or even whole Windoze) often enough to avoid the issue. If something happens when you're using other programs - you don't use other programs while playing. If something happens when AV kicks in you configure your AV to postpone its work until you finished gaming. All BEFORE things happen, not "if you have lag" already. I never said that. But you have to differentiate between severe bugs affecting thousands of players in the same time, and obscure rare things happening only to selected few in some rare configuration of events. Some are more WG fault, other are not. And those rare configuration is what YOU can change in these situation. I wondered wth you're talking about - and it seems it is you who doesn't understand the term "crash". If UI "fails to initialize" - it is crashed. It is not working properly, it ceased to do its function, it is not a GUI no more because you can't interact with it. Crashes are not limited to just the "Critical Error" window or BSOD No, thank you ;) Oh boy. Just do your homework, fix your stuff, learn how to avoid problems - and you will be less affected by "The Bug". And many other people with you.
  11. EU is the largest server by far, and least "biased" regarding particular nation in the game, so the stats here are the most representative. Of course, because she is the worst ship in the pack. Yeah sure. Like having 5% lower average WR than Leningrad, 1/4 less damage than Leningrad, 1/3 less kills, 2-times worse K/D than Leningrad, 1/3 less survival than Leningrad is "nothing" for you? For me the largest problem is lack of consistency. This game is not based on some fiction (well, at least at some tiers), and should reflect true history somehow. People are not learning about naval warfare from books, most of them are taking information from "popular culture", such like games, for example. And while I understand that to make Russian DD playable at the same tier, they for instance really need artificially shortened gun reload (because having so few so slow guns in RL) - I still don't agree that WG made the RELATIVE power comparison so twisted here. Błyskawica is worse than Leningrad in almost EVERY aspect, while we would expect the starting point of balancing to be exactly opposite. Sure, all ships at the same tier should be more or less equally powerful, with some aspects stronger and some weaker. But not like this, where you leave the best ship IRL so power crept that falls far far back in all parameters and stats. And dare to say that "honestly" "there is nothing in the stats". WHY Leningrad torps are so much better - while in RL Błyskawica had universal launchers which could use (and used) all Allied torpedoes and Soviet destroyers did not receive 53-39 torpedoes at all before the war ended (only submarines received limited amounts)? Why much larger Soviet ship has better concealment? Where did you take that abysmal rudder shift time from? Was it not enough to keep these fantasy "trial" speeds and artificially accelerated and empowered 130mm guns (crappy in RL at this stage of development) as "the Soviet thing" and allow others to shine in something, too?
  12. It hurts the most because in real life it was the best DD of the era. Quite a few years before the war-time development acceleration. Yet in this game has mediocre AA (in RL having absolutely top, comparable only to 1943-44 Allied DD), has mediocre torps (in RL she could load all the newest French 550 or UK 533mm models), has lowered speed (in RL she was way faster than fantasy Russians), has idiotically long rudder shift time, artificially increased concealment range compared to other much larger ships in this tier range. In RL she was built as a better Tribal and was stronger than Cossack in almost all aspects. Well, it is hard to avoid seeing Russian bias here, as Błyskawica was specifically (and successfully) designed to counter all Soviet destroyers of the time, which in the game are disproportionately buffed. The ship is living reminder of Polish national defense effort in 1930s being the oldest still existing destroyer in the world.
  13. EdiJo

    AFK people in start of a match

    Yes, and you are so accurate and precise Hello? We are talking here about late loaders and people which crash or disconnect, remember? This is not my "opinion". If you don't care about other people in a real-time multiplayer game - then you should be eliminated from it, that's an objective implication. Not much to "opinion" here. Yeah, right. I had my share of problems with WoWs, and I solved them. I adjusted my hardware and my way of using the computer, fixed my network issues. I don't ruin other people's games. Unlike some who preach from their ivory tower about mythical ideal software which should be always perfectly maintained and fixed by developers and tailored to any hardware/software/network config in the world, because "this is what customers paid for".
  14. EdiJo

    AFK people in start of a match

    if you understand afker, you can guess disco, especially in the context we're talking about... You carefully avoid quoting, but from what I see the bug can be simply avoided by restarting YOUR client more frequently. Also, there was a mention (find it yourself) that after changing the computer the issue disappeared. Evidently your report was not enough to track the issue, most probably because there was not enough reports and they were not detailed enough. You still have other means of resolving the situation (restarting your app), but for some reason you decide not to. No. The most applicable rule for software development is the Murphy's Law. All software has bugs, but those bugs can be more or less frequent, and more or less severe. Fixing old bugs introduces new bugs. Nobody nowhere promised you bug-free WoWs. Stop dreaming, read what you accepted ;) And your refusal of tracking and mitigating the bug is some kind of a protest? Against who - WG? Yes, you harm them by harming their customers, but we're talking now about the problem you create for those customers. Thousands of live people which have to sit in crippled game after some Zen71 disconnects in protest. Well, analogy is better if you imagine group of kids playing local football competition on some improvised field - and every too strong kick may cause some nearby window to be shattered, and therefore the whole game to be ended (ruined). Yet you still raise the finger and cite the rules of the game where nothing forbids you to kick as strong as you please, and you insist that the field should be secured by "competition organizers" against balls flying too high. Yes, it should, but so what? Does it give you any right to ruin the game for other 21 kids? Or you rather should pay more attention how you kick the ball. What do you think would those kids say about it? Restarting the system before playing and restarting the game after a few battles is not a big problem for you. It takes a minute of your time per hour of gaming. But you prefer to ignore what you learned, prefer to risk disconnecting and wasting other 23 people's 20 minutes and ruining their fun. This is the attitude which can't be accepted. Once again: in some single player game go crash and disconnect as often as you want, nobody cares; but here this is not an issue only between you and WG.
  15. EdiJo

    AFK people in start of a match

    Depends on what do you mean by "obligation". Software always has bugs. WG can do and does testing, but obviously they can't cover all usage scenarios. If the problem is rare, 1) most often it is not WG fault at all 2) in those less often cases WG can't test it and HAS to rely on bug reports. Bug reports require some effort to prepare to be useful. This effort is put on the user's side, sorry. Simple "automatic" report is not enough. And there is also another aspect of this. This is not only issue between some player and WG... hundreds and thousands of other players are affected if even some single stubborn disco keeps crashing, blaming WG for his problems without even trying to solve it "because it is not his JOB". That's why I always blame a disco or AFK-er, and I would ban them immediately from PvP if their issue is persistent and they don't want to move their behinds to resolve it.