Jump to content

Syrchalis

Players
  • Content Сount

    1,401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3712

About Syrchalis

  • Rank
    Midshipman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

683 profile views
  1. Syrchalis

    I'm very frustrated with the US CV rework

    I think you didn't understand what I said. A bad choice isn't a choice with only bad options. A bad choice is a choice with only one good option, meaning that it isn't actually a choice but a mere calculation with a definite correct answer. A good choice is one with many valid options. I also extremely disagree with your sentiment that it would make it too complex. Captain perks are far more diverse and complex than 1-3 loadout options for CV. Not sure what game you're playing but if you consider that as "too complex" then the whole armor/penetration system of the other ships is about 100x more complex and shouldn't be in the game either. And no the fundamentals are terrible. WG designed themselves into a corner with the 6 / 4 plane squads. It makes it disgustingly hard to balance loadouts and that's why US loadouts have sucked so badly for ... well since the game existed. For example Langley and Bogue are horrible to balance because there is simply no options for their loadouts. 1/1/0 and 1/1/1 are the only options WG has BECAUSE of the 6-plane squads that US has. IJN is much easier to balance (that's why they have better CVs and have got a rather acceptable update long ago) - because 4 plane squads allows for a lot more fine-tuning. A loadout too strong? Replace 1 fighter with 1 DB, replace 1 TB with 1 fighter etc. If you try to do that on US CVs that will completely make or break them. Okay example time: Hiryu There is a ton of options for it's loadouts. What would be other options than in the game? You could do a 1/2/3 loadout, a 3/2/1 (if Hiryu needed a buff), 2/1/3 etc. Ranger What possible loadouts can you do with it? 2/1/1 was even too strong on Lexington... no idea why though. 1/2/1 - nope, double TB banned by WG. 1/1/2? Yeah that's coming with the rework, because it's the only really valid option here. What I'm saying is that the less squads you have and the bigger the squads the less options the developers have to design loadouts. Worse yet, you can't even make squads smaller, because Hakuryu already has 8 squads which is annoying as hell (and exhausting too) to control. There is just no way to make this system work - at least not from a designing/tuning perspective. What would need to happen would be that all plane types are relatively balanced and the players can choose their loadout. I mean, let's be real. Everyone would go with a fighter/tb heavy loadout right now - but that's just because DBs are so horrifyingly useless. Fighters would need to play a bigger role in spotting (aka spotting would need to be harder and rely more on CVs in general) and DBs would need to be MUCH more reliable and provide much more damage. Or TBs would need a massive nerf in effectiveness. Either way, you feel gimped because WG chooses your planes and on top of that they are making it hard for themselves to balance CVs with it. It's just a lose-lose mechanic.
  2. Syrchalis

    I'm very frustrated with the US CV rework

    While I applaud your will to be a teamplayer, you need to consider this: What wins games? If you suck as a CV player you are better of with fighters, because they are easy to use and you put the power into your teammates by keeping them alive longer. However, if you are good at CVs you are much better off increasing your own power by having a lot of bombers. That's the plain theory, but the math is also heavily in favor of strike setups. God I actually need to make this my signature because I'm getting really tired of explaining why air superiority LOSES games: Extreme case: Pure fighters vs. pure bombers. If you do your job perfectly the enemy CV does 0 damage, you do 0 too. In this case you will probably spot more, improving your chance of winning SLIGHTLY over the enemy team. However, if the enemy CV just gets one strike off during the entirety of the game, he will have considerable damage contribution and due to the bursty-ness of CV attacks probably taken out a target, while all you provide is spotting. I can't count the games I won by killing 1-2 DDs while the enemy CV prevented most of my other attacks afterwards and then merely spotted my DDs. Yeah... my DDs died... eventually, but his DDs were long dead by that point. I'm not saying your mentality is wrong, I'm just saying it's a bad idea to play air superiority if you want to win. The only exceptions are clan battles with all unicums because you will never deal enough damage with strike against AS to justify the spotting you lose (since unicums use spotting 10x better than random players and they are also 10x better at avoiding damage from a CV).
  3. Syrchalis

    I'm very frustrated with the US CV rework

    Okay here is the deal with Air Superiority and the AA debate: Air Superiority The gameplay sucks. If AS is the way to go (aka optimal playstyle) it means CVs just shoot each others fighters down. They have no interaction with the rest of the players. They might as well get their own game, as I said above. Secondly, it's not fun. It's an underdeveloped boring part of the game. Shooting ships, choosing HE or AP, considering their armor, their ship class, their angle, where to aim... that's very good gameplay, because you have many valid choices and there is a lot of ways to deal with a lot of situations. Fighter engagements are either RNG rightclicking or strafe until someone screws up (or more realistically gets screwed by the laggy shitty interface). What gameplay is that please? Bombers, especially torpedo bombers on the other hand are much better. You need to consider angle, turning circle, rudder shift, speed and predict these things for the ship, while the ship has to outsmart you. But that's just the drop. Before that you have to select targets smartly. Where are the enemy fighters (and this is the only valid reason there even is fighters), where are the cruisers, do the cruisers have good AA/consumable? Is the target within AA range of other ships? AA debate Basically WG said "yo, we want it so that AA actually shoots down planes before they drop torpedoes/bombs" - and that's it. There is actually no other reason AA is this strong right now other than that. People feel like AA is useless because it doesn't "reduce the amount of damage they take" if it's weaker. But this is false. CVs will just be balanced for the fact that they lose X planes when attacking. Whether I hit with all 14 dive bombers for 30.000 damage or if 7 get shot down but the other 7 also deal 30.000 damage because they got buffed to compensate for the AA doesn't matter. Only when AA starts getting destroyed this is relevant. And this sucks as a mechanic. Mainly because of the +100% durability module (alternatives are pretty meh) and the fact that you definitely do not want to target a damaged ship because of wasting your strike power. Worse yet, making damaged ships especially juicy targets just frustrates the players further. Because who will hate CVs more? The 50% BB who is in the heat of battle and just gets "godfingered" out of the game or the 100% sniping BB who drops to 30% and can repair? Still worse - who SHOULD get targeted? The brawler or the sniper? Yeah guess what, the game promotes killing the brawler. (Part of the issue is also that CAs are so squishy so they have to hide with the snipers and inadvertently keep them safe).
  4. Syrchalis

    I'm very frustrated with the US CV rework

    I would really appreciate it if people on these forums would stop assuming things like that. If I ask for "no low tier planes" I'm not saying "give me high tier planes and don't nerf anything so it becomes OP" - im saying "no low tier planes, find another way to balance it, one that makes sense and actually improves gameplay". The deal with low tier planes is that they are just more extreme. Against an undamaged AA ship they cannot do anything at all and against a burned out ship with already bad AA they will absolutely obliterate it. Essentially what you fear will be reality if this goes live like that. Imagine you're in a 70.000/97.000 HP BB with serious damage to AA guns (~70% of mid tier is knocked out) and you find yourself at the edge of a group of ships for just a minute while you're turning and suddenly you get 14 AP bombers and 12 torpedo bombers your way. You're done. At the same time the same planes will still evaporate the second a Des Moines so much as glances at them. And this extreme difference is what makes CVs this broken mess - either played by an average player who gets punished insanely hard for his mistakes. Or played by a really good CV player who simply doesn't do a big mistake and simply obliterates everything. The loadout thing is still this: No Choice < Bad Choice < Good Choice. The balance thing is true, but if WG seriously can't balance several loadouts for merely 2 CVs per tier... then why do they even bother? It proves their ability to design and implement CVs is not sufficient. The Essex vs, Taiho thing is also more of a pathetic attempt of WG to just copy the ship. A 2/3/2 Taiho has extreme torpedo bomber potential, while the Essex will have high dive bomber potential. But since it's AP bombs it's essentially the same thing. 2x5 T9 fighters vs. 2x7 T8 fighters should balance out more or less. So they just made the ships really really similar. That is really boring. There is a million ways to make CVs more interesting, more fun and maintain balance - not just that, but also provide a system that is easier to balance. Part of the issue with CVs right now is that balancing them is really hard - and that's because of the very inflexible way they are implemented. You have US with a fix 6 planes per squad, IJN with 4. You have pre-set loadouts. You have just 3 plane types. The plane types are very imbalanced to each other. It's a huge mess and that's why they struggle to balance it.
  5. My issues isn't how the rework was done. My issue is the fact it happened now. Why? If there is a huge general CV rework coming, why try to fix the US CVs right now? They have been trash for ages (namely since early 2016 - that's nearly 2 full years!) and suddenly WG decides to give them a do-over while a general complete CV rework is scheduled for 2018? What does that mean? It means WG will either gradually throw patches on all their CV issues, crappy half-solutions like this US CV rework OR worse yet, it means the general CV rework is so far in the future that they saw it necessary to fix the close-to-useless US CVs so they might exist in this game as anything but troll-ships. One might consider the idea that WG just wants to do a quick and easy fix for the US CVs until the rework comes and it doesn't mean the rework is far in the future... my response to this is: Be real. WG has forsaken CVs for years. They barely fix bugs, they didn't improve the UI, they fucked up the gameplay and they overbuffed AA to the point of complete ridiculousness. Does anyone really think they suddenly do a small US CV rework to please the non-existent player-base for these ships for a few months until the big CV rework? Don't make me laugh. Now the rework itself: I hate it, most of it at least. I... I will just make a list. No more options, one loadout for all - yes kill all player choice before it even starts, also huge disadvantage if enemy CV knows exactly what you're playing before the battle starts. Low tier planes (essex fighter/tb, midway TB) - I understand the need to balance the rather strong 2/2/2 loadout, but this isn't the way. Low tier planes should not exist, period. In fact, the whole plane tier system is rubbish and should be abolished right away anyway. It causes CVs to be nearly untouchable if high-tier and absolutely garbage if low-tier. It would be much better if the planes durability would scale directly with the battle tier and not some arbitrary stat depending on the ship. Getting a bigger ship with more reserves, faster planes (not more durable planes) and new loadouts was always the fun part about advancing in the CV tree. Durability NEVER got better from tier to tier because AA got better too. In fact, T4/5 have by far the best durability in relative terms and T8/9/10 suffer insanely under the overbuffed AA. DB-focus - as long as DBs are this random and poorly designed I don't want to use them, they are unsatisfying to play with and very annoying to deal with as the bombed ship too. Torpedoes have great outplay potential on both sides but DBs are just "click and let RNG decide", just like the old fighter duels. "Unsmart" design - you know what never bothered a midway player? Losing planes. The insane reserves of this ship even made players kill their planes on purpose before the "losing squad penalty" was introduced. So giving them T8 TBs is actually a pretty bad way to balance it. Though, here is what I like: AP bombs - yay at least one choice to make... though it's probably going to be one of those "A is strictly better than B" pseudo-choices Focus on bombers instead of fighters - screw the idea of air superiority, bombers are what connects CVs to other ship classes. Fighter-heavy CV meta means CVs fight their own little battle while the rest of the game is pretty much unaffected. That's boring as hell. Might as well make a "World of Aircraft Carriers" without BBs/CAs/DDs if you focus on fighter setups. So uhm, good job on NOT doing that. It's not really like I trust WG when it comes to game design anyway, but if this is a taste of what is to come for the CV rework in 2020, then ugh... please no.
  6. Syrchalis

    HMS Lion - you r experience

    My experience with the Conqueror is more in line with Flamu, but not as ridiculous either. But I do get some nasty 10k salvos with multiple fires regularly and that's pretty much why it's OP. 2nd game I did 230k dmg, high caliber, arsonist, witherer and more. It's really easy to use and barely takes damage.
  7. Syrchalis

    HMS Lion - you r experience

    I liked the Lion a lot when it was released. Now it feels really mediocre. Yes it's still a good BB, but the HE spread is so horrific, you barely hit anything at 15km aside from the biggest BBs. Shooting a DD at 13km? Forget it. That really kills it for me. What use is 48% fire chance, better pen/alpha damage on HE if you can land 1-2 shells at best on longer ranges? I don't want it to hit full salvos, but if I aim correctly I don't want to see zero hits because dispersion half of the time, even on ships like Bismarck... Now add the horrible turret arc of the back turret and you got yourself a mediocre ship. Meanwhile the Conqueror has better arcs, great accuracy on HE and a gun more... seems balanced?
  8. Syrchalis

    RN BB NERF(rebalance) incomming?

    Why so insanely short-sighted? If you buff HP of cruisers you can take away from their negative strengths in turn. The whole idea behind it is that cruisers don't have to fear getting absolutely wrecked by BBs from all ranges, angles and everywhere. I think you haven't understood WHY good players do well in cruisers. It's because they can make something weak work. They abuse the mechanics of the game to the max and they also abuse bad players. If you put a really good cruiser and a really good BB against each other the BB will still obliterate the cruiser with no chance for the cruiser. In a DD/CA or DD/BB scenario the power difference is a lot closer. In other words - if looking at the best players fighting the best players, cruisers are too fragile. If looking at the best players pwning n00bs they can do that with cruisers too...
  9. Syrchalis

    GZ test 1

    Oh, players already forgot how to play against CVs and that it's their own fault if they eat a full strike... that's the price you pay for having all CVs be total crap and driving away the good players with useless UI and crappy gameplay. If I never met a good DD I wouldn't know how to deal with them and then complain about it being OP too.
  10. Syrchalis

    Flamu: Nerf Conqueror already!

    Just WG doesn't realize that making a good game, with healthy design will bring in more players, keep more players and end up with more revenue in the long run.
  11. Syrchalis

    WG, look at battle statistic- MM is off by 80%

    MM ignores skill, skill matters a lot, even in an RNG-heavy game like WoWs. Thus a lot of games will be very unbalanced skill-wise. 2 Solutions, which both suck: 1. Skill-based matchmaking = much longer wait times 2. More RNG so skill matters less... I think it's clear why that sucks...
  12. Syrchalis

    RN BB NERF(rebalance) incomming?

    You post two arguments from me that have nothing to do with each other and don't contradict each other. The first is about balance the second about healthy gameplay. Something can be balanced but unhealthy. Or unbalanced but healthy. The reason good players do well in cruisers is because they hide like chickens behind islands - you can't do anything else really. It's unhealthy gameplay. Why make a game in a way that 10 people per match have to hide for 10 minutes? If cruisers were tankier and more maneuverable they could play a game of "dodge and predict" with BBs, which would promote skill and be MUCH healthier and more fun than just not taking part in the game for 10 minutes. Balancing cruisers after a serious buff to "BB resistance" is something you can do afterwards, when the gameplay has become more fun and healthier. I have to say it really pisses me off how people in this forum care not at all about the argument or goal of a discussion but rather at fighting each other personally or proving each other wrong, no matter what it costs.
  13. Syrchalis

    RN BB NERF(rebalance) incomming?

    Rofl at this statement. Any game made Edited does EXACTLY that. You always balance for the best players, because it will inherently be balanced for any other skill level too then (not perfectly, but well enough). However, if you balance for your average joe, then the game is likely to be completely broken for the best players. The reasoning behind this is very simple. If you balance for the best players nothing is broken if played perfectly. But some things can be really weak when played at average joe level - because they require more skill to be effective (e.g. CVs). If you balance for the average joe then some things (namely those that are better when played perfectly) will be utterly broken when the best players play them... again CVs as example. That's why you never balance for casual players first. You can adjust your game that is already balanced for the top players, so that it's more balanced for average joes too, but best players need to come first if you don't want broken balance. This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.
  14. Syrchalis

    Flamu: Nerf Conqueror already!

    HE spamming BB that is clearly OP - oh finally BB-Mains will stop demanding CV nerfs? Wishful thinking on my part.
  15. Syrchalis

    Degree of counter

    So you're saying I'm on point, but due to my exact word choice you disagree? I see balancing as a delicate thing and just because WG does not, doesn't mean I have to adjust to them. A massive nerf in a different game (Starcraft/LoL) is 10-20%. For WG that is a slight adjustment. BB AP should easily deal 20-30% less damage to cruisers and they would still rock at killing them (as their purpose is) but without forcing cruisers to hide behind islands for the first 10 minutes. And against DDs... how about 50% less damage? I mean, if I shoot a BB as cruiser I don't expect it to blow up in 2 salvos either... so why can BBs demand to blow up DDs in 1-2 salvos?
×