Jump to content


Quality Poster
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About dasCKD

  • Rank
    Sub Lieutenant
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Drowning in salt.


Recent Profile Visitors

1,239 profile views
  1. Met @dCK_Ad_Hominem and @_Helmut_Kohl_ in Ranked just now. Helmut's team had a Hindenburg and we had a Des Moines so...
  2. HE for all secondaries?

    Depends. The Kaga for example really should fire HE, whereas the Taihou and Hakuryu would very much benefit from AP secondaries.
  3. Is a Pan-European tech tree wanted?

    I went to see a Swiss 'navy' show on Lac Leman a few times. They bought out all four of their boats. It was quite impressive. I did not realize there was a navy in the world that still used paddle steam ferries.
  4. Battleship change/rebalance

    The Gearing would like to have a word with you. But on a more serious note, the problem with citadel reliability is a long standing one. I have, for example, citadeled a Zao whilst she was perfectly angled against me using a Hindenburg, a ship with infamously poor penetration on her AP rounds. Sometimes citadel hits just happen. Doesn't make it common and doesn't make the German armor scheme any less stupid.
  5. which DD line to choose? DD questions

    The best tier X destroyer, if you want to go with that line's conclusion, is the Minotaur. She is a little large for a destroyer and not very fast, but she has the most torpedoes out of any of the tier X destroyers and the best DPM out of any of them. You have to learn to play around her poor concealment and the fact that she seems to take more damage than the destroyer average from battleship shells but once you do, she is the best destroyer in the game.
  6. ideas to change bb playstyle

    This just shows how ridiculous using pure armor values to measure cruiser resilience is. According to this chart, the Edinburgh has comparable alpha survivability to the Hipper with is blatantly ridiculous. By the above standard, the Hindenburg is more squishy than the Des Moines, Zao, and Moskva. There is also no plate on the citadel of the Prinz herself with the cited thickness of 153 mm and, if we're going by 'thickest citadel plate' as the standard for survivability then the chart has a further inaccuracy as the Kutuzov has a Athwartship plate of 120 mm, the Charles Martel's thickest plate on her citadel model is 100 mm, the Atago's thickest citadel plate is 127 mm and not 140 mm (I'm not even sure where they got that number), not to mention the fact that using the thickest armor plate is meaningless because ships like the Mogami have their thickest plate submerged and thinner plates above the water where it is an easy target for enemy ships. It is like claiming that the Yamato is tougher than the Kurfurst AND the Conqueror because she has the thickest armor plate. The chart also excludes midsection, bow, and stern plating that also puts her perfectly in the center of tier 8 cruisers and also excludes health pool where, again, she compares extremely favorably surpassing the Mogami, Chappy, and Charles Martel even if we exclude the ships with a heal to augment their survivability. It is amazing how inaccurate the above chart is. Measuring a ship's survivability by pure armor thickness is like measuring the performance of a gun by the weight of the stock.
  7. ideas to change bb playstyle

    You do realize you can't tank 'for' your cruisers and destroyers, right? If the enemy sees a bow on battleship and a juicy cruiser and destroyer, who do you think they will shoot at? Quite frankly, I find battleships who don't get close to put their guns to good use more viscerally offensive than ones who conserve their health whilst still staying in the fight. Silver Russian cruisers have no smoke, the Kutuzov is incredibly clumsy for a cruiser of her tier and her armor is also perfectly normal compared to her competition, and the Belfast pops like a zit whenever someone with any gun caliber at all lands a hit on her. One would say that the overly large numbers of destroyers on each team is caused directly by the fact that there are far too many battleships. Camping is safe, but it is NOT rewarding. Unless you are a Conqueror I guess. Ultimately, battleships do their best when they put their heavy punches into enemy ships at middle ranges and players who know how to survive at those ranges will always be rewarded better than stupid spawn campers whose fate is to be farmed by long ranged roaming cruisers and carriers at the end of the match. Or you can use islands to break line of sight and engage enemies as they come. Or you could follow cruisers and destroyers or even other battleships so the enemy ends up spreading their fire more. Or you can do anything other than what you suggested. Why should such a mechanic exist for battleships and not cruisers anyways? Should we extend this to cruisers? Do you want to see what a true zombie is like when Hindenburgs run havoc across the maps whilst shrugging off anything but citadel hits and torpedoes that rarely if ever would actually affect them? Eh. You know even if I was given the option to bomb the spawn campers, I'll still go after the responsible battleships on the front lines. They are competent, understand the power of their ships, and are a threat to my team unless summarily removed from play on top of giving the enemy carrier far less time to react to my shenanigans. If I get a special class of bombers, my targets will not change. The pushing battleships will just get screwed over harder. Also, why would you camp in a French battleship? Of course not. It's an AI mechanic and is mostly useful in battleship brawls. Why should it be improved anyways? The Mutsu and Ashitaka suck, but this is mostly caused by their performance against other BATTLESHIPS and not cruisers. The New York is perfectly fine at her tier as is her turret mechanization rate. The Mikasa has no contemporaries so discussing her power is meaningless. Gascogne eats very few citadels like almost every stupid battleship nowadays. Sounds like the kind of thing cruisers would benefit from more if it wasn't completely overpowered. For battleships with excellent survivability already, this is unnecessary especially as the concept of a living and mostly operational Montana or Yamato being useless is comical beyond words. We don't really need nor want AI interfering in fights between players. Your suggestions come from a good place, but the fact is that most of the proposed changes will not change the playstyle of most players and will simply make the best players even more dominant than they already are. As things are, even battleships with poor survivability are still levels above their contemporary cruisers as any cruiser player who wandered into a crossfire will be more than happy to tell you. The relegation of battleship damage to entirely preventable damage (i.e. citadel hits and torpedo damage) when battleships are already as they are will not fix the battleship problem and do nothing about the battleship plague.
  8. Stalingrad the most TROLL OP ship ever

    She seems like great fun, but the only thing I see which is OP is her ability to overmatch destroyers with her AP and still maintain the accuracy of a cruiser.
  9. I don't see why that matters. So people want to wear their rank 1 with pride. It's inane quite frankly. And there is a difference between the two players for the exact same reason that there is a difference between someone who pays 100 euros and 2000 euros for the exact same product. Ineptitude is its own punishment in ranked, and it pulls the games of other players down just as often as it gives the same player unjust wins. That would be moronic. It would mean that players who, for example, stayed to defend a flank against an enemy attempted encirclement or deployed at an area that happens to have no enemy would be screwed over. In the long term, it promotes selfish and stupid plays that could end up sabotaging the team simply because players want to ensure that they don't end up last which just leads to more unnecessary losses for games that are already won. The whole point of ranked is to create a game mode where winning the match matters more than personal achievement. This sabotages the very concept of ranked. Which how many people care about exactly? If all people wanted was to fight other people of more or less the same skills, then they would just go play in training rooms. People play ranked for the rewards, and having players of similar skills is directly detrimental to that. I would, for one, like nothing more than an enemy team of nothing more that players who can literally not tell the difference between their bows and their sterns. So ranked 1 would just be an epeen then. Quite frankly, if I could get a Black, Flint, and discount flags and radar modules without ranked then I would not touch ranked with a ten foot pole being held by someone else and I suspect I am not alone. You are just forcing your idea of what ranked should be on the rest of us and will end up making a lot of people miserable in the long term. I quite frankly have enough of a hard time talking my teammates out of suicide charges without the threat of them being dropped a rank if they don't perform well enough compared to not just their enemies but also their allies.
  10. Conqs heal and Republics armour

    Well, I mean sometimes paper ships would just be superior, intrinsically, to ships in real life thanks to the constraints of reality. Take the Akizuki for example. One of her largest weaknesses is her speed, a weakness she would not have if the theoretical Akizuki instead of the actual Akizuki were represented in game. When a ship is actually built the problems and limitations of reality make themselves known. It's like how the 138 mm Mle French destroyer guns had a theoretical designed RoF of nearly double their IRL RoF thanks to mechanical flaws in the loading mechanisms. As for the Republique, she's fine as she is. Quite enjoyable as well, if her guns actually behaves. The Conqueror is stupid however. If the Conqueror's traits does indeed make the Republique compare unfavorably to her, then it is the Conqueror that should be nerfed. Asking for the Republique to be buffed and citing the Conqueror is like if WG released the Stalingrad with the RoF of a Hindenburg and instead of nerfing the Stalingrad they instead chose to give the Hindenburg the RoF of a Minotaur.
  11. I'm climbing ranked slowly because I'm just not playing as much ranked as I expected to be playing. Edit: quite frankly, I dislike the 'keep a star' system we have right now. I would rather they reward the top player on the winning team with two stars so they climb faster. Would make things more pleasant for everyone.
  12. The Carrier Problem

    I can only speak for myself, but I personally find that I perform better in CVs if I try to maintain a high APM early game at least against good players. Strafe battles takes literally seconds to start, and I find that if I start out with a low APM I also find it difficult to step up to the necessary micromanaging I need when it really matters so even when idle I make my fighters trace doughnuts for that reason.
  13. The Carrier Problem

    Well, I think that the whole issue with carriers is that as things stand is that the way that carriers, and I understand that this is a common criticism of the class, punishes players who put themselves on the front lines to exert power on enemy objective play. Ships like the Conqueror, at least, really just exposes the brunt of the problem. I think that AA destruction in general is a terrible mechanic that either has to be reworked from ground up or not at all. As it is now, the mechanic really only limits the power of a single surface ship under the command of a potentially excellent player. As the closer they are to the front lines the more damage they are liable to take, better players will have their AA degraded on top of being more attractive targets for carriers already thanks to their proximity to carriers. Players who use their ship to take fire, therefore, can't also use it to repel AA. Whilst on a game balance perspective this can be made to work in something like a strategy (e.g. Starcraft) or mostly zero sum team game (e.g. League) the problem with this mechanic in a game like World of Warships is that it disincentives players to do what their team may very well need them to do. Well, in that case the destruction of AA mechanics would be even more of a negative trait. One of the main defenses against carriers is to blob up, but as AA degrade carriers will simply be able to stomp on just about every ship late into the game. Worcetor and Minotaur are somewhat unique as they have a good brunt of their AA in their self-repairing main turrets that allows them to retain AA effectiveness for about as long as they can stay alive, but for most ships even blobbing up will not save them from carriers. With our current system being unable to strike blobs isn't a limiting factors for a carrier circumstantially, which means that carriers are in fact less team dependent as as long as their allies can get their shells on target, enemy ships will slowly lose AA. It isn't so much depending on teamwork as they are depending on a degradation mechanic so ubiquitous that it might as well be hard-coded into the game's script. But CVs can indeed strike blobs, as previously noted, if the AA degrades or if the ships are simply not equipped to deal with the carrier through either the fault of the captain skills or matchmaking. I didn't really say much about the tier disparity issue, but the AA jump at around tier 6-7 is a massive problem to ships on both sides of the divide. The fact is that if the team has a bad lineup (i.e. all Nagatos VS a Taiho or even Hiryu VS all Gneisenaus withou AA upgrades or skills) no amount of team play will let them escape the carrier's wrath. Whilst the circumstances suggested are obviously contrived, the fact that it could happen at all. There are things that those ships could do about that obviously, but the fact is that a large part of the problem is that there IS something that could be done to arbitrarily increase the performance of AA. Well, they are many options I thought of that could be used to fix this problem or at least improve the circumstances somewhat. I would probably either make it so that either the AA mounts are indestructible or are suppressible through the use of high explosives i.e. ships under fire will lose almost all of their AA firepower and become extremely vulnerable to carrier strikes but, after escaping fire for maybe a minute or three at the maximum, will regain all of their AA power. This has the fringe benefit of limiting the carrier's ability to simply wipe out entire flanks and will encourage carriers to work harder to synchronize their attacks with ally actions. Even without this mechanic, I will still likely demand more visiblity when it comes to the state of AA ships both allied and enemies as the stupid obfuscation of important information, especially in regards to carriers, that we see right now is quite frankly toxic to new carrier players and at the very least incredibly unpleasant to older players. I see myself moving further and further away from expecting cooperation in game mechanics in general the more I see of the game but assuming that teamwork is still something we really can't expect. Assuming we want to preserve teamwork however, the current additive AA bubbles we see in the current system works perfectly fine for me. The AA mechanics aren't inherently bad in their pure form, it's just everything that surrounds it including mandatory aircraft upgrade skills and modules and how AA destruction is used to hide the problem that really gets my go.
  14. The Carrier Problem

    Well, no ship has quite that AA range (yet) but the invisibility of AA in general is a problem. It's almost impossible to know which ships are shooting at your planes which introduces more skills that a CV player needs.
  15. The Carrier Problem