Jump to content

Isoruku_Yamamoto

Players
  • Content Сount

    794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9570
  • Clan

    [BBMM]

2 Followers

About Isoruku_Yamamoto

Recent Profile Visitors

858 profile views
  1. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    Developer Bulletin 0.9.1

    Secondary range on all german BBs, Republiqye, Alsace, Jean Bart, Musashi, is quite problematic since range is far more important than RoF Its a hard nerf to anything currently using: - aircraft due to increased BB AA - secondary battery mod - deep water /dw2 torps
  2. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    Any news on when we can expect the Benham?

    It will be nerfed hard with the upcoming torpedo module 3 change though. Reload from 65s to 80s- still very fast but well. Thats a huge mistake imo, now gunships do get a buff in that slot while CVs and torp DDs dont
  3. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    XP modifiers - Math question

    Well lets do it correct then. Base XP: what you earn in battle. Say 2000 (example) Modified base xp: only adding premium bonus. 50% for WG premium, 65% for WoWS premium i believe. (3000 and 3300 xp) Ship XP: modified muliplied by 100% plus camouflage, mission and signal bonusses. Commander XP: modified muliplied by 100% plus camouflage, mission and signal bonusses for XP, plus all bonusses for commander XP. Free XP: modified muliplied by 100% plus camouflage, mission and signal bonusses for XP, plus all bonusses for free XP. Camo 1 gives 2000+4000 xp, without premium. Also 6000 commander XP. And 6000/20=300 free XP (i think its 1/20 for free XP). Camo 2 gives 2000base+2000ship XP. 4k total ship xp And 2000base+2000ship+2000comm= 6000 commander XP. And 2000base+2000ship= 4000/20= 200 free xp. Those final numbers can be multiplied by 1,5 or 1,65 for premium bonus.
  4. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    Developer Bulletin 0.9.1

    They testing nothing, so the results are fine. My german BBs, Graf Zeppelin, Shimakaze, and generally all of my carriers would like to protest that though.
  5. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    Should the daily missions be doable playing clan battles?

    While this answer sounds nice, players contribute to the victory in clan battles equally like they do in randoms. Not mentioning that the victory condition is pretty trivial and crappy, winning multiple CBs on a night- especially in gale and higher- should count towards these missions.
  6. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    Isoroku yamamoto

    The Yamato is very good for the buff in turret traverse. The cruisers also benefit from it, but its a matter of preference. Don't put it on CVs, thats a waste generally- the talents are far too specific. Destroyers mainly benefit from talents, and you'd have to play for the talents (first blood and kraken based). Grtz the fleet admiral himself, Isoruku_Yamamoto
  7. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    6 t8 carriers one match possible, apparently

    Theoretical scenario here: If only a few players are online, matches with fewer players may occur. If then out of those players nearly all are CVs, would matches with for instance 2 BBs and 3 CVs vs 2 BBs and 3 CVs be possible?
  8. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    Poll: Imperial (doubloon) Bundle drop chance

    It does come with a port slot, worth at least 150 doubloons...
  9. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    unify key bindings of consumables (2020 edition)

    You are also not reading a word of what i write, so eh. Im saying you take a number of free consumable slots, whether it be 5 or 10, and assign them to RTYUI by default (so normally 5, cause well, thats how many we have now, but as i said, you could take more). Then a player can keybind these himself- as is already currently possible with the RTYUI. That way it DOES boil down to the same, but hey. I do understand what you say, but well Also, i included a suggestion in my last post which would actually meet any players possible wish ever for consumable key binding, but i can imagine it wouldnt have been clear enough. If thats the case, i'll happily explain it again.
  10. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    Viewing targeted ship info

    Thing is, what youre suggesting probably wont exactly help newbies really learn the game. The game is currently a bit hard to truly learn but IMO thats a good thing. Intuitively easy, hard to master. But if you give an overlay of the Citadel on a Bismarck, ppl may think they can just citadel that thing- at least with BBs, and thats not how that works. So you'd need a more complex, adaptive overlay- which foregoes the entire skill aspect of the game IMO
  11. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    Viewing targeted ship info

    Overlays like that used to be available through mods in WoT. Nowadays highly illegal and you risk account bans for using them. The easy solution, as proposed by many, is to just go into port and look into armour models. I'm not a unicum, but im a fairly good player (at least i like to believe so). One thing i often do is to inspect a ships armour model when i keep overpenning them or not penning, and see why that would be. Which sections are plated heavily or lightly, and next time you'll do better. In general though, only playing 1 class (in your case youre heavily a DD main) is not that beneficial to performance i guess. It specialises you in playing DDs, but then it also becomes harder to play cruisers and particularly BBs well. So what it boils down to is probably just: try to play cruisers & BBs for a week straight & i'm sure you'll do pretty great at the end of it GL! Btw i can give more in depth advice, but honestly i think you wont quite need it. If you do, dont hesitate to ask- i'll give you some tips & you can do with them what you like ;)
  12. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    unify key bindings of consumables (2020 edition)

    Lol okay yeah i didnt necessarily check out your specific stats or whatever, as a matter of fact i hadnt even looked who posted it. In general i heavily oppose the idea of binding specific consumables to single keys, other than for the Damage Control Party since it is shared by any ship (... other than CV, but hey, lets forget about squadron consumables for a sec). The main issue against it is just the impracticality of it. Now, you bring up a gaming mouse as a counter- and while i did read that the first time, i didnt respond to it because again it seems fairly impractical for me for four reasons: 1. Theoretically one should be able to play this game even on a laptop using a game pad. I'm not recommending that, but it should be possible. 2. A standard office mouse should be sufficient for sure, since this is not a very specialized game. It should at least be enough to handle all consumables, although currently clicking a consumable does activate it (does anybody do that?) 3. I dont have a true gaming mouse, but i at least have two additional buttons to the side and then this DPI thing on top. Means i could remap and additional three- but i already remapped the two on the side (for AA and 3/torpedos respectively, though the latter is sometimes impractical lol). So these keybindings would have to be customizable anyway- which leads more towards my idea 4. My idea eventually pretty much boils down to what you -and some others- want, namely the fixed key for consumable idea, but i myself would normally suggest to use less slots to keep things concise. However, you can expend my idea to have 7-10 freely swappable slots (however many would exactly be needed, stuff like torp reload+gun reload, all smokes, the aircraft, can currently go into 1 slot). In my opinion that would be the way to go, to either go for the base version of my idea (R+ 4 free slots, TYUI with remappable keybindings), or for more free slots even if WG wants to keep everyone happy. Now, if i knew how to properly write mods like this, i would make one. I do know some coding and stuff, but i don't know enough about the current WoWS interface to be able to do this in reasonable time i guess. TL/DR; I think the consumable keybind unification has some good aspects to it, but just mapping every consumable to a single key really isnt going to make everyone happy. There are very elegant solutions out there, even such that you will make 100% of players very happy, now its up to WG to actually implement a good solution Grtz I_Y
  13. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    unify key bindings of consumables (2020 edition)

    Aaaaaaaand this would work just fine with only five keys available, being R-T-Y-U-I, with the same free consumable assigning. Why would you ever want to start using K or ? On consumablses when the problem is mainly that some ships with identical consumables have different orders? The issue of wanting to map very consumable to its own key is only shared by a small number of delusional captains here anyway, who probably stick to BB only since theyd realize how impractical it is otherwise
  14. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    unify key bindings of consumables (2020 edition)

    The longer you wait, the more im against it tbh. Got these setups remembered for all of my ships and id have to reconfigure that then. Only proper way of implementing it is to make slits swappable between keys, which would be effectively the same as re-logging the key bindings for each ship. Isnt that mainly figuring out how to store it in the preference file (i got a suggestion) and then make a nice UI around it? Suggestion: make a small vector for each ship containing the consumable order data Repair always at 1, so four interchangeable slots. (#1-4, equal to TYUI). Consumable order=[3-2-4-0] would mean you have bindings U, Y, I (heal speedboost and gun reload for instance, french BBs) with no fourth consumable (hence the 0). . Also, a fix in between could be to make a priority order for consumables and always place slots accordingly. Of couurse that can be tricky since some consumables may be replaced by many others (radar vs hydro, def AA, smoke, spotter, while hydro also has that plus engine boost, etc). Still, it will generally give more consistent layouts i think
  15. Isoruku_Yamamoto

    Big clans

    Please take this up with support, public naming and shaming is-even when you think its justified- not allowed here.
×