AkosJaccik

Players
  • Content count

    319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    8832

1 Follower

About AkosJaccik

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile AkosJaccik

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Budapest
  • Portal profile AkosJaccik

Recent Profile Visitors

193 profile views
  1. The human brain is a wonderful instrument, mainly because of the capability for abstraction. Torp DD is potentially present in the area -> maneuver, problem (largely) solved. You don't have to see him dropping torps. Frankly, I start to believe I am getting to know why the "hate". Because when it comes to shellfire, one can argue that "I couldn't outmaneuver it", "RNG", "the guy aimed well", "i got overmatched", "citadel sits too high", whatever. But when it comes to classic stealth torps, it is largely about "I screwed up, and the guy capitalized on it". End of the story. This is why torpedo hit ratios are abysmal, this is your "fire and forget" weapon, more like "fire and pray" that the guy on the receiving end has no game sense. BBs were fine even two years ago with such torpedo boats that are now by all intents and purposes banned from the game, and back then people had to actually spend on the Situational Awareness skill. No radar, barely any hydro. Now, however? I can't remember the last time a topic cried about torp DDs, and if anything, this should be a good indication in what state they really are.
  2. As far as I know, switching ammo type was a pain in the *ss on the Yamato-class, so an option could be only using two barrels per turret, as the middle one fires sanshiki shells. ...of course, this was only a joke, as I am completely blind to how she could be present in tier foken' eight.
  3. Obviously not - I wanted to give an option for those who have nothing constructive to give in a sarcastic manner. What I am curious about is the answers that take it seriously.
  4. Yes, hopefully, you are right, and - in this regard - they will follow the existing example.
  5. Greetings! ...about model quality. A great thing to see that it neatly improved over the time - however, we can't tell the same about the "elderly members" of WoWs. Now, obviously, this has exactly zero impact on the gameplay, and to be fair, WG does work on older models as well, mainly when it comes to the riggings and rails, but it's still somewhat sad to see the disparity in model quality when it comes to certain ships. In some cases, even the same exact detail / part looks different according to the time of implementation, let me show you an example: (disregard the color scheme, I don't have the Hatsu anymore) Clearly, simply putting the new, "HD" turret onto the old, "LD" hull would look silly, so this is rather an example of how the details improved over time, but still! I, for one, would like to see WG giving some love towards the older models, God forbid by remodeling them, at the same time, I'm aware that it would take a metric ton of work for very little return of investments (I mean, compared to spamming out a new premium ship every two weeks ͡(° ͜ʖ ͡°) ), but a part of me still waits for the day, when - similarly to what WoT did and does - we get to see some sort of "WoWs HD". Not this year, not the next - but maybe after that. The argument saying "We don't have free-ish deck camera in the port because our models don't look good enough at close distances" is also less and less valid. On the other hand, implementing the old ships with updated models, but as premiums is also a - maybe more plausible - way... Maybe I should ask this in the Q&A, but frankly, I don't have naive dreams about this for now.
  6. SE. On a T9 battlebarge.
  7. They sort of did, there is a Q&A with a specific question about her and a hinting answer for TGS in the "news" topic I believe.
  8. For some reason that made me lol. "So, what will be the speciality of the Musashi? Radar? Hydro? Speed boost? Über-secondaries? Opening a portal to hell?" Musashi: "Nah, mate. Guns. Simply: guns." *que dramatic music, turrets start traversing towards the camera...* *...after half an hour and several cuts later guns finally turned to face the camera, view zooms in, music intensifies*
  9. Static. The classic OBT-crosshair, but with longer reticle. I got used to the static crosshair, and that to not distract my mind use it in a locked zoom level (the highest one) whenever it is possible. But I do remember not tinkering much with the dynamic crosshair, who knows, maybe I'll take another try now, just to see how are things going to go.
  10. Indeed. Just slap everything into an extensive Pan-European tree, so we are not filled with 10-ship nations, and also easier to train up captains. Every ship can hoist their historical / national flag, but "officially" stay under the PE-umbrella, and there is no debate then. In retrospective, ships like the Błyska should also find her way into the PE tree, it's just a sad prospect having tons of nations with barely any content really.
  11. As I take your post sincere, I'll ditch the sarcasm and try to reply in a friendly manner. First and foremost, World of Warships is a game. The apparent "hostility" you can see on this forum stems from the fact that a quite good part of the playerbase (often called as BBabies) play this game with strong faith in their opinion that battleships should be sort-of invulnerable "because of realism". (Strangely enough, they are usually the same people who want to nerf carriers, not-really-for-realism.) 1.) Concealment mechanics was far worse in the past (but still playable), now it's fair, really. It isn't "historically accurate", but it gives chances to mainly ship classes that would be dogfood even more times otherways. Should you play at least once with a destroyer in higher tiers, and you'd understand this full well. Actually acquiring the target on screen and shooting at it is basically the last step in WoWs, if you rely only on that, then you need more experience with it. 2.) You argue about historical accuracy, but "torpedoes appearing from nowhere" is actually pretty damn historically accurate, hell, sometimes even when the first thing you notice is not the torpedo but the explosion is also "historically accurate". Again: go drive a torpedo DD in higher tiers and you will know pain. If someone nukes you with torpedoes, 90% of the time it simply means that you screwed up big time. 3.) Wait... wait. You do realize that you can check the actual camo values for camouflages, right? I can't remember off the bat, but most will give you like -3 or -4% to the concealment. In themselves without captain skills etc. they are almost neglible. And besides, invisifiring is for all intents and purposes deleted from the game, so if someone is shooting at you with main battery without something to break LoS (like a hill), then you will see him. In the end, "not fun" basically means at the end of your points that "I got damaged, and that's not fun." There is only some things you have to be aware of: This is a game. There are four classes, not only one. Everyone has a right to be awarded for good plays. And frankly, if you suck in a battleship, you will be far less punished still, than in any other class. Ask about this any cruiser or DD player, or any CV who got mowed down by a lone battleship's AA how much "fun" they have. You have no right to survive playing poorly just because you drive a big foken' boat, it's that simple. In fact, you should have even less than you have now. This is why most of the posts in your topic say what they say. So - you either flee, or adapt.
  12. I see what you are about. I think that while the XP-gains feel somewhat balanced-ish (capping, overall playing the objective is usually rewarding, although there are anomalies, like for example, I have that feel that I get a fair amoint of xp where for instance I shot down a metric f*ckton of airplanes with the Gneisenau for simply a. having AA and b. having targets to shoot at, esentially neither of this is linked to my skill or direct effort - this is very justified for a team-playing AA cruiser, but in this case, I simply just semi-passively defended myself), gaining credits very much feels like depending on if not solely, but in a very, very large part delivered damage. I have vivid memories of games in f.e. the Dunkerque, where I admittedly didn't do anything special in terms of damage (lolpersion didn't help either), but tanked a whole lot of focus fire for a fairly long term, resulting in a respectable amount of potential damage. Did it worth it? Absolutely... not. Nay. Not at all. Hell, if someone is farming credits in a prem ship, it might as well be a more "optimized algorithm" to max out damage instead of winrate. While if that is the case (naturally I do not have any clear data to back me up), that clearly does not promote objective-focused and in turn team-focused gameplay, I also don't think a lot would change if the reward mechanics would change, as first and foremost, WG fails to clearly disclose even the public parts of the gameplay mechanics in-game, but also because f2p games (or open multiplayer games in general, really) are like trying to herd ants, while the whole colony is tripping on LSD. Frankly, if the flat service fees do nothing more but deny the "but, but, I survived with 70% HP because I pressed 'S' at the start of the battle, whereismymoney?!"-arguments, then it's doing at least something. Surviving in itself shouldn't necessarily be a feat on what rewards are constantly based on.
  13. The problem with Wargaming's argument is that it's completely inconsistent. We do have the max. horizontal dispersion in the game, which in itself does not mean anything, but not the vertical, the sigma, let alone the function describing the accuracy depending on the range. We have a pretty neat and commendable armor wiever, but just about nothing about the armour piercing values of the shells. We have shell velocity, but not air drag coefficient, Krupp-values etc. What's in the game is completely ad-hoc and tells one half of the story. By this logic, why do we have those in the game? You can also just check the wiki for the HP values of the ship or the torpedo reload values too, right? So no, I'm afraid I won't accept this reasoning, and I do think that just about every information has a place in the game client, if it's well structured. I mean look at the forums. People cry about the "weekend noobs", half the players might barely have a clue about mechanics like HE pen, AP overmatch, damage saturation or just simply the visibility mechanics, but how should they, really, when you need to read the wiki, check the YouTube, follow extensive patch notes and sacrifice a goat just to be somewhat up-to-date with this mess. So, no, information belongs in the game client. (Even WG realized this, and of course, implemented in in the worst possible way, by putting a web browser with the wows.eu into the game under the "news" tab...) And so does historical background. No, not the wikipedia page or any other 15 pages of lexical data 99% of the people will never read; but a whole lot of well-selected and well-illustrated interesting stuff could be written about these vessels like combat records (for example, show the damage report of the Pensacola after Tassafaronga), interesting technical points (for example, the catapults of the Graf Zeppelin had a capacity to lauch about 18 planes if I remember correctly, then they had to be repressurized with 50 minutes of work), small bits of details (for example, regarding the Nagato's explosion, how san-shikidan shells worked, or even a picture of the cross-section of a shell), and even about "paper ships", for example, a bit of detail about them, and suddenly the rather random Izumo becomes the preliminary plan for the Yama', the A-140-J2. I could even imagine more general pages. What is the Voith-Schneider propeller? How does turbo-electic propulsion work? What happens in reality when you press "hydroacoustic search"? How exactly do aerial torpedoes differ from surface lauched ones? Etc. Best thing about it would be that it's all completely optional. You don't want any sort of historical pages to find their way into the client - you can avoid them completely! Just don't read them, problem solved. And frankly, this wouldn't take an insane amount of work either. You make a simple interface for it, then put two of the slaves called "trainees" to work for two months, and it's done. Did WG really put a lot of research into their ships? Good! Show us! Not that it will ever happen. I'm just completely baffled by the opinions stating that "putting historical materials in a game with a historical setting is nonsense". But again, it's true that first and foremost at least the game's core mechanics should be addressed and desribed by the game itself, and after, only after, go for the interesting historical stuff.
  14. Sounds fun still, but I mean... I can barely handle my excitement when my Mikasa clocks out at 18 knots, let alone starts bleeding speed in turns. At 7-8 knots at flank speed underwater with batteries glowing white I would probably sacrifice my goldfish to Satan in the second minute.