Ishiro32

No patrz jakie zaskoczenie :p. Skoro juz to powiedzieli, to powiem ze przy starym ladowaniu, Shokaku moze byc calkiem fajna znowu.

Bo w sumie prawie wszedzie okrety to "One", sa wyjatki takie jak niemcy w czasie drugiej wojny swiatowej, ale to jest bardziej cos co zauwazylem i juz mi sie wbilo. Czasem zapominam kiedy nazwy brzmia mesko jak Lexington, lecz byla to w sumie ona. Wycinek z polskiej wiki Sa rozne odpowiedzi czemu tak sie przyjelo, jedno odwolujace sie do starych tradycji, jedne dotyczace roli jaka pelnil okret, jedne zartobliwe (bo sa drogie w utrzymaniu, wymagaja duzo farby by ladnie wygladac a takze kreci sie w okol nich duzo mezczyzn), lecz jest taki stary trend ze okrety to One. Wiec jak nazwe lexingtona on, to raczej moje przejezyczenie sie, bo tak naprawde to jest Lady Lex. Sa ludzie co okrety odmieniaja jako "ono", ale znacznie zabawniej jest mowic ona prawde mowiac. Ma wiecej charakteru wtedy to wszystko.

Azell jakbys zobaczyl ladowanie na shokaku to watpie bys wytrzymal nerwowo . Ja sie nie dziwie ze juz prawie nikt nie gra na Hakuryuu.

Wiesz jest jeden pozytyw tej zmiany. Troche lepiej sie atakuje teraz grupy pancernikow grajac japonczykami. Bo ich torpedy plyna rownolegle i maja ogromny zasieg. Wydaje mi sie ze japonczycy sa przez to bardziej skuteczni do atakowania formacji niz amerykanie (chyba ze Ci rozbija zrzut). A co do 3/1/2 i 2/2/2, nadal nie wiem na co sie zdecydowac. Ja mam w glowie jeszcze jak shokaku gralo sie 0/3/3 I caly jej gameplay sprowadzal sie do grania w okol Lexingtona, a nie przeciwko niemu. I sadze ze z 2/2/2 można by dalej grac ta technika i skupiać się na szybkiej agresywnej grze na wielu frontach, ale tu jest tak mało ludzi i celów, ze może być za mało dziur w obronie, jest pewne ryzyko ze jak na początku nie zdobędziesz tempa to całkowicie odpadniesz z gry z powodu słabszych mysliwcow.Z drugiej strony 3/1/2 będzie się trochę liczylo na wygranie powietrza a później kapitalizacje na tym, tutaj zakładasz ze Twój Team będzie w stanie wytrzymać ataki torpedowe amerykan, bo Ty będziesz się całkowicie skupial na wrogich myśliwcach. Sensownie dopiero od 10 minuty zacznie się klarować przewaga w powietrzu i dopiero od tego momentu będziesz mogl blokować ataki amerykancow, a to zakladajac ze nie schrzanisz czegos i nie stracisz dużej ilości mysliwcow przez skilla (na filmiku możesz zobaczyć co zrobil skill kiedy było 3 sklady shokaku kontra 2 sklady shokaku, 8 samolotow od tak padlo.). Możliwe ze następne gry zagram 3/1/2, ale mowie miałem zly dzień i spadlem do 6. Ja preferuje raczej agresywna gre, wiec uznałem ze 2/2/2 da mi wieksza szanse wygranej przy tych słabszych teamach po obu stronach. Heh, sam nie wiem, zobacze na co bede mial humor.

Meanie head!

Earlier people were going crazy about witcher 3. I agree that there is really no point in talking about new releases, because honestly WoWs is not competing with them. Games like WoWs or LoL or Dota etc. are meant to be played for a very long period of time. Games like Fallout 4 are meant to be played for 20-60 hours. The same way Fire Emblem Fates on my handheld will not compete for my attention with new XCOM even though they will be released at the same time. So yeah, let's not talk about other games in this context. They were nerfed because they were overperforming and I was calling for nerfs myself. I was arguing with you then because your propositions how to nerf them were stupid and overall your vision of carriers is distorted. Also people don't play carriers not because they are "weak" but because playing them right now is painfully annoying. as an example tier VIII gameplay, carriers are not "weak", just have gameplay issues which will be patched sooner or later:

Principle was that classes have different gameplay and excel at different roles. "Power" you are talking about is just a balance issue, not failure of the principle. There is nothing wrong with asynchronous gameplay, but it is the hardest thing to get right, especially when developer does not have experience in the genre. Ehhh... Listening to you talking about carriers is painful. No the core design is not at fault here. Carriers are simply the class which require most development time to work and they are just not ready yet. Why do you think there is no premium carrier or any information regarding another ships of that class? Carriers are also the line which has most volatile changes from patch to patch. Are carriers in need of overhaul? Yes. Does it need to be complete redesign? No, at least not from scratch. Will WG manage to do it? Considering development times I would say it might take them a year to do it ok. Carriers are simply underdevelopted and as I have said at the start of the open beta, they are not ready for the prime time. WG decided to go with it? Fine, then the road to balance will be rougher, but we should have good carriers after few big patches. There will always be some other game. For example right now I am playing MGSV, in the January there is a Blade and Soul release, then in the fabuary I will have Fire Emblem Fates and new XCOM. Maybe fallout 4 had some impact, but it shouldn't be significant, big new games are comming all the time.

No coz, to byl dopiero frustrujacy dzien. Na start spadlem do 6, bo w ogole nie jestem rozegrany w Shokaku, a potem gdy sie przesiadlem na Lexa to padl mi net (w czasie ranka oczywiscie), a potem podrozujace pancerniki po calej mapie tylko nie walczace. Potem powrot do Shokaku i znowu na 5. Heh... az sie zaczalem zastanawiac po co w ogole w ta gre gram. No w kazdym razie, obiecalem cos z Shokaku i mialem request do mario to prosze bardzo. Powiem ze mam dosyc zmiksowane odczucia co do shokaku, ale powiem tak: - Jak ktos umie robic reczne dropy z DB, to sa super celne i mozna meczyc spokojnie kazda klase, a na pancerniki i lotniska to jest ogromna szansa na latwe podpalenia i trafienia (szkoda ze dmg sam w sobie taki lichy). - wydaje mi sie ze znacznie lepsze do zbijania niszczycieli sa torpedowce amerykanskie. Tutaj udalo mi sie zgarnac blyskotke, ale to glownie ze wzgledu na to ze sie zatrzymala i nie miala zadnej mozliwosci manewrowania. Na otwartej wodzie naprawde nie ma szans by trafic. - Poki co nie mialem jeszcze dobrej gry przeciwko Lexie, ale tez zagralem malo gier, wiec musze sie rozegrac i zobaczymy gdzie pojdzie. Ale jedno napewno sie nie zmieni, tracenie samolotow jest bardzo bardzo latwe. Glownie Shokaku gralem tak ze bardzo sie rozbijalem po calej mapie atakujac w wielu miejscach na raz, ale przy malych teamach to roznie z tym bywa. - Ladowanie to powazny problem, Jezeli duzo samolotow Wam wraca to naprawde polecam ladowac recznie, a nie liczyc na automatyczne kolejkowanie. Nie wiem, shokaku to troche swoj cien i sadze ze Lex to nadal znacznie lepsza propozycja, ale moze uda sie cos ugrac. Zly dzien, zdarza sie. A to maly bonusik: Glownie to tu jest walka Lexa z Hatsuharu i taka drobna przestroga dla graczy niszczarek. Nie puszczac tak torped. A przynajmniej nie wszystkich. Byl moment kiedy obracalem sie tutaj i bylem w pozycji ze gdyby miala ona torpedy to bym umarl od razu, ale ze zrzucila je kiedy w pelni sie ruszalem i bylem do niej ustawiony czolem i mialem sporo miejsca to tak. Nie robic tak.

Jutro bede gral na shokaku, a takze pewnie cos jeszcze wrzuce z Lexa 5+ co wczoraj gralem, bo dzis liga, a potem sobotni wieczor. A problem mam taki ze lotnisko ktore mialem przeciwko sobie to Lexington ktory ma 5 skill. Poniewaz mamy tak samo ulepszone samoloty to po prostu on ma pzewage liczebna 7 samolotow na 6. Przez to niezaleznie od tego jak kombinuje nie jestem w stanie wygrac powietrza i jak na poczatku gry jestem w stanie dzialac i robic swoje, tak im dluzej trwa gra, tym wiecej trace samolotow az w koncu nie jestem w stanie kontestowac o dominacje powietrzna. Przesiadam sie na shokaku glownie by uniknac tego niesprawiedliwego mirrora i dac sobie nowe opcje.

Yeah... no. When did you last try to do it? Because what you are saying was true... like 2 over month ago. If you get hit by torp on open waters in a DD then you made some big mistake. Many = one. There is only one bug in the list I have given, rest was planned changes. Point wasn't that they should waste DDs, but that they lost a niche and identity. Actually it was. Check dev blogs. IJN = destroyers and crusier USN = battleships and crusiers as targets. Well, at the end of open beta I stated that CVs are not ready for the prime time and I still hold that opinion. I do not think the changes need to be huge, just the different direction.

I really need to interjeck here just to straighten up some claims, so bear with me for a second. CVs by any means are not slow, but they are not faster than battleships by significant margin. CVs are not able to escape BBs when chased, the only chance they have is to break line of fire with environment or allied fleet. CVs are rather easy to shoot at also even from huge distances and the citadels do happen quite often if aimed well. Aiming at CVs also isn't big issue because CVs are not really able to manuver, if they do they lose instantly about half of their speed which will translate in enemy BB closing the distance rather fast, their max speed when sailing straight and beeing easy target is as I said not enough to run away. Fact is If CV is in line of sight of any CA or BB they are pretty much dead without support or clever use of the map. This is actually quite hillarious because I think IJN DDs are right now worst CV killers in game. It's super hard to take CV by suprise with torps, when they have all those planes in air and SA skill. Gun boats on the other hand, those are pain. Especially very agile russian DDs. Especially now when IJN are nerfed against DDs any gunboat DD should be able to win with carrier one on one. Torping DDs was nerfed. IJN has slow torps and by recent testing I will say that killing DDs right now require him to make mistake or require CV captain to predict movement before it happens. I will take tier VIII as an example and I would say it's impossible to sink tier VIII russian DD in the Lexington if the DD is on open waters and is aware of the planes above him. Also it's impossible to kill DD with one torp. It was changed in recent patches and now you need minimum 2. Tier X are easier to hit because they are bigger and planes are faster but at the same time to sink Shimakaze you need at least 3 torps. Oh my, we finally have something we agree on. Well to be fair we also agreed on the fact CVs needed nerfs, but whatever. Yes, that's the core of the issue that was present in the game since beta. CVs need a lot of changes to make them fun, lowering their damage potential is easy, just tweak the numbers, but the issue is with gameplay. I will now tell you the changes CVs were getting to nerf them in recent months: - messed up landing procedure which might be bugged, this results in longer landing times, increase the down time and since planes do not do what you think they will do it increases frustration - took away control over the fighter fights making them ignore any other order - increased reload times on all IJN CVs which just increases the downtime - drastically increased number of elements on the battlefield which can panic planes which is very very negative status and very very annoying to deal with when there are so many sources and your reload times are so long - took away fast torps from IJN which pretty much took away their main role as the DD destroyers. - as a bandaid resolution to the problem of the stupidly steep CV scaling they enforced MM which pretty much made each game the same, because you are almost aways playing against the same ship and at the same time with declined CV population created queue problem - made one of the sources of damage which was problematic only at low tier, feel random and unreliable at all tiers (flooding) Can you now see why people decided to not bother anymore? CV gameplay became less unique, the downtimes increased and a lot of new control issues were generated. Edit. To be fair there were also some good changes to CVs, but those were buried under new issues. At the same time I am still playing CVs and I wouldn't say they are weak... they are just pain to play and I am doing it only because I can pretty much adapt to anything.

Pink camo? Hell, I would want to have it, with unicorns, hearts and stars. Taunting at it's best.

It's the same as it was before . Lexington is a carrier that really didn't receive any big changes during recent months. She is pretty much in the same spot she was before all this. Shokaku on the other hand is just a shadow of her own past. But Lexi was my second favourite carrier so I think my opinion is not really ubiased. I think there are three big issues for carriers: 1) They are not fun enough right now. Failing at them feels painful while to perform well you have to jump through some ridiculous hoops (like "bugged" landing). Decline of CV players is the result of this. Carriers were overperforming hard and needed nerfs, but they were hit in the wrong places. 2) High tier planes are too fast, because of it aiming became too easy to do. Because of it you can't balance them both against DDs and BBs. If you want to have fast planes which are easy to aim, then lower the damage, while slower planes should have higher. Then faster planes would be used mainly against DDs while slower would be used against BBs as faster would have too low damage to bother BBs, while slow would be too slow to properly hit DD. 3) Overall I would say that carriers scale too hard with tiers. They get thougher planes, more planes, bigger reserves, faster planes, bigger damage.. The biggest offender was Hakuryuu in CBT which had 5 TBs with increased dmg (around 11k per torp). It was unstopable monster that could solo whole game. Because of this whole scaling the AAA has to have huge spikes as well, so one tier difference is actually messing a power balance by a huge margin. Carriers scaling should be smothed HARD. Even to a point where tier VI escort carrier can be used in tier VIII game and perform it's role. Light carriers should have a place near the fleet carriers. Now after normalizing everything you can try to deviate, ie. making fast planes with low damage. Making slow though fighters with fast fighter skill etc. There is so many possibilities for different types of planes that would compliment different playstyles (stealthy fast planes with low thoughness), but without normalizing whole class (and AAA) you simply can't do it. Whole growth is blocked by this super steep tier scaling.

nerfed hard in the last patch. Flooding is unreliable, even from US. Also it was never doing enough damage on high tier.

Sounds like a pain to play 5+. Good to know, I will probably just go back to random after I go to 5.

Lovely, as always. The MM is not issue, but the number of players. I know some people here complain about waiting times, but in my opinion rigid MM for carriers is ok. There is simply not enough carrier players. Also I know you didn't ask, but in my opinion tier IX and X CVs were always busted. Their planes are simply too fast to balance them. They were to easy to use. Since they use the same systems as lower tier carriers, you can't simply nerf them without breaking other ships in this line. Carriers up to tier VIII are balanced so messing with them can result in well... current IJN line. Fun stuff. This is probably why we heard that WG is planning to lower TB damage overall and give buffs somewhere else. Oh well...

Szybkie pytanie, bo ze wzgledu na brak czasu i checi na robienie rozbudowanego contentu pomyslalem by moze robic takie szybkie highlighty. Czy ten format bez komentarza z jednej gry ma jakis sens czy wartosc?

Happened to me today also. After next game everything went back to normal. Probably just server hicup or something, nothing lost though, so whatever.

IJN DBs are able to manually hit DDs and the accuracy is pretty great. There is no way that you can miss big ships like BBs and CVs with the new IJN DBs. The change to the circle was great and it is really fun to use IJN DBs right now. USN DBs on the other hand are the same as they were and they have high chance to hit because there is a lot of them, but still you RNG can play tricks on you. Hitting DDs with USN is still a dice roll. USN DBs were changed so during automatic drop the circle doesn't increase in size much when panicked, but funny thing is that it still is super huge when you try to manual when panicking (auto is much more accurate in this case)

Individual rewards would promote damage whoring much more. There is no way you can properly reward people for their “real” impact on game, because a lot of it (like zoning) is not measurable. There is a reason why we have +50% bonus for the whole team for the win. This team bonus takes into account and rewards actions that do not translate into exp and credits normally.As for carriers, I just gave you list to show you how full of holes exp rewards for them at the moment is.I prefer system which is right now, in the long run, with the enough battles played everything will equalize so whatever.Also you have said something about not playing ranks because you would be too stressed. Just treat it as chain quest to get 10kk credits in a future . Or If you are grinding some tier VIII, treat is as advanced training ground. For me it works and I am having a lot of fun.

Actually if those were bots made by WG they would have probably carried the game to victory. No, some people just refuse to communicate and play bad on their own. Or maybe WG just made chinese room experiment and you are first one to notice that we actually were always playing against a machine.

XP is not representative of player's impact on the game. Not to mention that right now CV are expected to cap points in the exp system. Spotting is giving nothing, even though those informations are winning games. Plane kills are not scaled with tier properly, nor do they take into account if the bombers were empty or full.There is no exp for panicking planes during drop. There is no exp for forcing BBs to do manuver using planes. There is no exp for zoning using fighters (blocking air space so well that enemy doesn't even try to engage). This is only just for carriers. Giving stars based on exp is opening big can of worms. Current system is not perfect, but it's not so bad. Teamkills and afk should be punished in ranks a bit harsher though (giving them stars if their team wins is quite puzzling).

Jesus christ, guys. You are still talking about it? I mean I enjoyed almost whole forum belittling Neph, I am sure he did also enjoy it, but the topic is dead. No one cares. Let it rot. He had a point, if you want to discuss it, then do it in his topic about ranks, this topic is pointless.

Well sometimes I try too hard and it backfires really bad. Also that 3rd game of mine was so disastrous. Delete all the replays of that performance . There can be no proof of such incompetence. None!!

You seem to misunderstood me. The only person I was belitelling was Neph, mostly because I am triggered when some people on forum boast for no reason. The same way I treated some CV players. It wasn't also personal attack on him, as if he isn't being full of himself he is reasonable dude with a lot of experience. I have nothing against ranked mode itself as a concept (I have some issues with implementation, for example irrevocable tiers) and I have never said ranks did not require skill to get higher. I just said it was not competetive mode and was never designed to grade players as it's main feature. Main features are giving player feedback (rewards and rank ups and stars), providing alternative gameplay environment and giving better MM (this last part is having some problems). . Also I am actually playing in this season. I have blasted through 15-10 ranks and now I will slowly play tier VIII when I have free time. For me it is perfect occasions to train Lexi as I really lost touch with her and are messing drops constantly.