Jump to content

FoxtrotOscar_

Players
  • Content Сount

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4190
  • Clan

    [UNICS]

About FoxtrotOscar_

Recent Profile Visitors

303 profile views
  1. FoxtrotOscar_

    Developer Bulletin 0.7.11 - Discussion Thread

    That's the problem though, BBs don't want to use their brains.
  2. FoxtrotOscar_

    Developer Bulletin 0.7.11 - Discussion Thread

    That's not what I meant and I clearly stated the industrial differences. Even if that was what I meant, we don't even have that in the game. For a historical composition you are going to need 18-24 DDs per team which is no where near 2-5 we currently have. And yeah, let's give DDs citadels. I'd pay 100 bucks to watch you try and hit a DD's citadel from 14km away with that 5% hit rate, historical fire rate and historical shell travel time. Also, since we are going full historical let's give the CVs their full potential. I bet it's gonna be fun for your team's BB to sit on his rear end 50-300km away from the action, escorting a carrier group while enemy BB is getting absolutely rekt by 100-300 planes.
  3. FoxtrotOscar_

    Developer Bulletin 0.7.11 - Discussion Thread

    Oh really, are we playing the "historical" card again? You want historical, let's go historical: - Let's nerf BB hit rates down to their historical figures. 5% seems reasonable. - Let's give BBs their historical acceleration. A stationary Colorado for example should take 20mins to reach full speed. - Let's give DDs 10 spawns and CA\CLs 5 spawns per match to represent their much lower industrial costs to produce and operate compared to BBs. - Since we are giving DDs "historical" number of torpedo uses, lets remove the arbitrary stats and make them more historical ie. no detectability range and powerful enough to render almost all ships combat incapable after 1\2 hits. - Let's also implement module damage ie. a few overpens to the superstructure can render your BB combat incapable by destroying your vital systems such as radar and fire control. And I could keep going all day long...
  4. FoxtrotOscar_

    Improved After-Bounce Shell Mechanism

    I've been observing the shell ricochet\bounce mechanism lately and as far as I've seen (correct me if I'm wrong) shells that ricochet\bounce off a surface seem to just vanish after their contact with the said surface. I also happen to play World of Tanks and ricochet\bounce mechanism is a lot more advanced there. In WoT, after a shell bounces off a surface, it continues on its new path for a short distance with decreased energy and seeing shells bounce off their intended target just to hit or even pierce another tank nearby is quite common. Implementing such a mechanism in WOWS could introduce a lot of new and interesting scenarios. Let's say, you are shooting at a bow on BB and your shell bounces off its turret roof\sloped turret face just to hit the supper structure behind it for an over pen damage, or your plunging shell bouncing off the barbette armor of Yamato's second turret and heading straight to deck armor and giving you a full penetration damage, and many many different and interesting scenarios. Seeing as both games use the same engine, I don't imagine there would be any technical difficulties for implementing the same mechanisms here but I'm not quite sure about the effects such a mechanism could have on gameplay. Thoughts? Edit: New visual effects could be cool too, imagine bouncing off a turret face at close range and seeing the shell fly into the sky and drop back into the sea nearby after loosing all its energy, or seeing your shell bounce off an angled belt just to keep flying on its path new path and hit the water nearby with a splash effect.
  5. Hey fellas, I'm a fairly good player who mainly plays randoms and does some weekly operations here and there, and per the tittle, i'm looking for a clan. What i'm looking for: - English speaking - Easy going with no obligations (I play randoms regularly but I can't do organized play due to my daily schedule and time zone differences). - Clan members on the same skill level as myself, higher wouldn't hurt too :). Edit: Clan found and joined, would appreciate if mods would take this post down.
  6. FoxtrotOscar_

    Just Citadelled a Montana with Neptune, But How?

    Any updates on this one from the dev team?
  7. FoxtrotOscar_

    Just Citadelled a Montana with Neptune, But How?

    It's really really odd. There must be a bug in Montana's armor, or in Neptune's shells.
  8. FoxtrotOscar_

    Just Citadelled a Montana with Neptune, But How?

    Even if the shell from Neptune somehow managed to penetrate the deck\belt armor, shouldn't it penetrate the citadel's own armor as well to score a citadel? I don't think neither the penetration capabilities of the shell nor the special fuse time it gets would allow such a thing to happen.
  9. FoxtrotOscar_

    Just Citadelled a Montana with Neptune, But How?

    Support says they have forwarded the issue to QA and specialists and are awaiting their answer. Let's hope they actually share the reason once they figure it out and not just secret-fix it if it is actually a bug.
  10. FoxtrotOscar_

    Just Citadelled a Montana with Neptune, But How?

    If we go by the in game armor viewer, a shell from Neptune should have no way in hell to penetrate a Montana's deck or belt from ~16km, let alone reach the citadel, pen it and do damage to it too. There must be a bug somewhere in game's damage registry, ballistics\penetration calculation and Montana's armor model causing this.
  11. FoxtrotOscar_

    Just Citadelled a Montana with Neptune, But How?

    I don't think he did. If you look at the last screen shot with UI turned on you can see that Montana is slightly angled away from Neptune. By the way, after taking a closer look at Montana's armor layout and thickness I'm more inclined to believe this is just a weird bug. I'm not sure a 152mm shell from Neptune landing from that angle on Montana's deck and belt would ever have enough penetration to go through them, let alone reach the citadel and damage it. I sent a ticket to WG too but as said above, I guess we are going to have to wait a while for a solid answer.
  12. FoxtrotOscar_

    Camping Battleship Compilation!

    Well, all you need to do is look at minimap and find "dead ship" marks. Trust me, you won't find many of them close to camping BBs. EDIT: Got a new fun screenshot to share. Note the chat and the minimap. Btw, the BB in question here was full HP, literally, not 1 single damage taken.
  13. FoxtrotOscar_

    Just Citadelled a Montana with Neptune, But How?

    Okay guys, I did a bit of "investigation" and found some interesting results. The details may be a bit of overkill but I guess they are necessary. For a better and more exact understanding of what happens to second salvo, watch this video before going through the texts and screenshots bellow. This video is very important in defining the fates of the shells that may or may not have caused the citadel. So let's get to it: Neptune fired 4 salvos toward Montana. The first three salvos hit some shells and the fourth missed completely. First, third and fourth salvos do not matter though because the citadel happens in the second salvo. Now let's take a look at a few pictures to see what happened with second salvo. This is the moment when the second salvo fired by Neptune reaches and hits Montana. Note that all twelve shells fired by Neptune are present. (3x4 152mm) This screenshot shows the result of first salvo fired by Neptune. Two normal pens, seven shatters and obviously 3 misses. This is the result of second salvo fired by Neptune. If you take results of first salvo into account too, it means the second salvo managed 1 citadel, 1 shatter, 1 bounce and obviously 9 misses. A closer look at second salvo. Nine shells have missed Montana (Red) and three shells have hit Montana (Green). From this angle it seems that of the shells that hit, one hits Montana's deck armor just behind the third turret (Green 1). Note that it may seem like Green1 ends at the roof of third turret but if you look closely in the video (at 1:00 mark) and the screenshot bellow (to some degree) it is clear this is not the case and Green1 actually flies past third turret and hits the deck behind it. another hits Montana's belt bellow the waterline (Green 2), and the other hits the edge of Montana's deck between second and third turrets (Green 3). Another angle which confirms what was observed above. A hit on deck just behind third turret (1). Note that if you take a closer look at lower back of turret where there is a lot of smoke you can see a little bit of white shell trail, that I guess confirms Green1 actually passed right by third turret and hits the deck behind it. It is also clear in the video (at 1:00 mark) that Green1 hits deck area behind third turret), a hit on belt bellow the waterline (2), and a hit on the edge of deck between third and second turrets (3). And here is the result of second salvo after hits with UI turned on. It confirms two important things. Firstly, 1 citadel, 1 shatter, 1 bounce and 9 misses is in fact true for the second salvo. Secondly, is that the damage number pops up close to hits number 1 and number 2. If where the shell hits and where the damage pops up are tied together, then we can conclude that the citadel is either caused by hit number 1 or hit number 2 (see images above) and if where hit happens and where damage pops up have nothing to do with each other, we will have a harder time determining which hit results in citadel. Okay, now that we established the facts lets get into conclusion. We got three hits, and three results to assign to hits. The Hits: Hit Number 1: On the deck armor just behind Montana's third turret. Hit Number 2: On the belt armor bellow the waterline. Hit Number 3: On the edge of deck armor between Montana's second and third turrets. The Results: Result Number 1: Citadel Result Number 2: Shatter Result Number 3: Bounce And that's it. I won't try and assign The Hits to The Results since I don't think I have enough knowledge of game's ballistic and shell mechanics. But what are your thoughts? Do you think the 3 Hit\3 Result conclusion is right? If it's right, then which Result belongs to which Hit?
  14. FoxtrotOscar_

    Camping Battleship Compilation!

    I'm not sure which one is worse. Creating a similar thread (which clearly isn't the case with this thread, I read the thread you mentioned and it's different), or going around derailing and ruining threads.
  15. FoxtrotOscar_

    Just Citadelled a Montana with Neptune, But How?

    In the case of barbette, taking the Neptune's shell velocity and mortar-like landing (i.e the angle at which the shell hit's the barbette), wouldn't the shell auto-bounce off the barbette? Another point to consider is Neptune shell's penetration power, does it have enough power to go through Montana's barbette? EDIT: Never mind, the post above (posted at the same time as mine)answered both my questions.
×