Culiacan_Mexico
-
Content Сount
2,844 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Battles
14993
Everything posted by Culiacan_Mexico
-
Managing fires in a BB is a core skill, but if you take the time and make the effort, you can learn to mitigate them.
-
Give back the Bogues AS setup please!!! It's wortheless now!!
Culiacan_Mexico replied to Sargento_YO's topic in General Discussion
I did check your stats, so I am interested...so questions. You found the most useful setup to countering your game play was the 2-0-1; which I believe, as it seems logical. So perhaps in games against you that would be the best choice for the opposing CV to make, but what about in all the other games, where they face different players? Against you 2-0-1 might be the best, but in a majority of games might not a different setup be better? -
IMO. The base concept seems fine, but implementation is less so. When CVs show up in your battles, it requires some major adjustment to your play style due to all the 'disadvantage' you now face. That is fine, because every other type of ship you face, be it destroyers, cruisers, or battleships, requires to to adjust your play style; but these ships also enhance your game play. Most DDs want cruisers behind them giving support, or BBs close enough to suppress the opposing teams cruisers. BBs want cruisers to screen for DDs, which BB and CA want DDs to scout and cap. Other ships type enhance your game play, but CVs... It isn't that CVs couldn't or haven't enhanced game play (a CV that pre-scouts a cap fro example is just huge for a DD), it is that it so rarely happens. If a poll of the players base was taken regarding CVs in games, I don't think it would be pretty. Ats present, the implications of having a CV on your team brings far too many negatives for so few positives. That should be corrected, but it won't be easy.
-
I suspect you are correct, in that very few would want them in their game; and to me, that is there biggest 'balancing' problem.
-
I would be interest in seeing that percentage.
-
Interesting, maybe I should play them more.
-
I can see your point.
-
For me, this is the biggest problem with these PvE operation... lack of replay interest. Once you have received the awards for five starts, why play again?
-
1. In a DD, you should not be chasing CV at the start of the game... let alone in a cruiser or battleship 2. CV risk their planes when they attack; and aircraft are the heart of CV play. 3. If you are constantly being taken out by CVs, then this is an issue with your game play. I am not saying that very good CV can't ruin your day, but how often do you face very good CV players? The truth is... when you have a CV in your game you must alter how you play. Find the adjustment you need to make to minimize an opposing CV effect on your ship.
-
WG fix [edited]BB AP against DDs already
Culiacan_Mexico replied to ClappingLollies's topic in General Discussion
You think MortenTardo started this thread because of normal AP overpens? Only he can answer that question. -
WG fix [edited]BB AP against DDs already
Culiacan_Mexico replied to ClappingLollies's topic in General Discussion
1300 ISH? Are you now talking about BB AP doing '1300-ISH' damage should it strike a DD? I don't believe the original poster was talking about that, but... What is wrong with BB AP doing that type of damage? It seems about right to me. -
Wouldn't an AS setup be more limiting/passive for the player taking it? For example, someone taking AS and successfully protecting every ship on their team has done zero damage to the opposing team. Basically nullifying the opposing team CV player, still needs the other 11 players on their team to out play the opposing team 11 players. You are in large part putting your fate in the hands of your team, which overall should work out to a 50% win rate. Maybe a little bit more in your favor because you might spot more effectively, and you do have some strike capabilities. Wouldn't a good player be more likely to influence the overall out come of the match by taking the load of carrying on their shoulders? Wouldn't this require more offensive types of load-outs?
-
WG fix [edited]BB AP against DDs already
Culiacan_Mexico replied to ClappingLollies's topic in General Discussion
I fully understand. You started of by insulting some posters, then made statements that were completely false, all because you are upset that a known bug, that you have been exploiting, might be corrected. Now you are mad. -
I am not qualified to tell you how to use your carriers, but a good way to determine your effectiveness with any ship is to look at your win rate. The sample size for your Ranger is still fairly small, but it should be enough for you to wonder if you are having issues. Games WR Ranger 96 43.75%
-
WG fix [edited]BB AP against DDs already
Culiacan_Mexico replied to ClappingLollies's topic in General Discussion
What are you talking about now? ---------------- 14 hours ago, Drake847 said: The most annoying Thing is this double pen bug . We had a Desmo Player in our clan doing 11 cit hits with one salvo . So 2 Shells actualy did double cit hits with one penetration .... wilkatis_LV - Replay or it didn't happen. ------------- There was a post a while back that seem to indicate that the issue could be related to the over match mechanic. I can't say whether that is true, but if it is, that would be another reason for WG to proceed with caution. BB AP vs DDs is not working as intended, but it is a know issue... they don't want to introduce more, unexpected problems, during the process of fixing this. AP over match is an important part of BB game play. I think their caution is reasonable -
WG fix [edited]BB AP against DDs already
Culiacan_Mexico replied to ClappingLollies's topic in General Discussion
I think the question is whether you have bother to read S_O post on this issue, which is not restricted to double damage. ------------ wilkatis_LV- "...WG noticed that everything works exactly as intended..." Sub_Octavian - This is definitely a bug and mechanics not working as intended. An AP shell shouldn't deal more than regular pen damage to a DD, as DDs don't have citadel. ---------- wilkatis_LV - "...As I said previously - back when we still had the +/-3 MM I was executing DDs with BB AP..." Yes, you are using a game bug to cause extra damage beyond game design. -
WG fix [edited]BB AP against DDs already
Culiacan_Mexico replied to ClappingLollies's topic in General Discussion
MortenTardo - WG fix [edited]BB AP against DDs already. Is that what you got from this post? It depends on how long ago you started play this game, because in open Beta and when the game went live that was not the case. -
WG fix [edited]BB AP against DDs already
Culiacan_Mexico replied to ClappingLollies's topic in General Discussion
Sub_Octavian - This is definitely a bug and mechanics not working as intended. Why is a game bug funny? -
WG fix [edited]BB AP against DDs already
Culiacan_Mexico replied to ClappingLollies's topic in General Discussion
Sub_Octavian WG Staff Posted August 15 Hello. This is definitely a bug and mechanics not working as intended. An AP shell shouldn't deal more than regular pen damage to a DD, as DDs don't have citadel. Thanks for submitting this case, we have several more similar reports, and understand the problem. This case should be solved along with other problems when we update ballistics model - which is included in actual development plan with high priority. Hopefully it will be done with BB AP -> light armored targets damage balancing, which was also requested. -
WG fix [edited]BB AP against DDs already
Culiacan_Mexico replied to ClappingLollies's topic in General Discussion
WG found it a problem after they were informed of it. Now perhaps they should have been able to see it for themselves, but they didn't. However once they understood the issue, they investigated and concluded that game mechanics were not working as intended. I am not sure what the problem is? WG believes the present game mechanic is not working as intended, so why not fix it? Is your complaint the slowness of WG to fix game issues? But Sub_Octavian acknowledged two problems: 1. Sometimes an AP shell does more than one shell worthy of DMG (e.g. one shell generates two (!) regular pens). That's a bug and about to be fixed 2. In general there's currently little need for BBs to switch from AP to HE while engaging a DD. Meaning that DDs take too much BB AP DMG according to the devs and this - too - will be adressed. Note: Allied_Winter posted this some time ago. -
WG fix [edited]BB AP against DDs already
Culiacan_Mexico replied to ClappingLollies's topic in General Discussion
Where did you get this from? Sub_Octavian...it would be good for balance to reduce BB AP damage to light targets, to force BBs into more shell choice -
I have to agree.
-
WG fix [edited]BB AP against DDs already
Culiacan_Mexico replied to ClappingLollies's topic in General Discussion
I never complained about it because it was fairly obvious; and I thought it was intended. My surprise was was when some EU players pointed it out repeatedly and questioned the mechanic; and the response from WG was odd. The didn't say working as intended, but dismissed the whole idea that AP was working that way. For me that was a flag, that WG, even though they player their game, had no idea what was happening. That isn't what WG is saying, they are in fact saying the opposite... "acknowledge the problem". ------------------- EU Q&A transcription of 8/11/17, with Lordofdroid/Conway/Crysantos and Sub_Oct. (self.WorldOfWarships) BB-AP fixing: when?!? They are aware of the issue, and acknowledge the problem. It may happen sooner than mid-next year (as was previously stated), but it requires changing ballistics, and that's the core of the game, and it requires ridiculous amounts of testing, since ballistics is the most complex thing in the game from a dev standpoint, and the easiest to FUBAR hard. It is being looked at, but caution is needed. -
That healing point is a trap for some: near full health cruisers and battleships parked there in my first game. I went with the Fiji, which seemed to work well.
-
1st Game was 2 Stars 2nd Game was 2 Stars 3rd Game was 5 Stars Team dependent. Play well and eventually you will be part of a good team.
