Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About huymog

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Birthday 12/21/1947
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

340 profile views
  1. huymog

    Is this how CVs are intended to be "balanced"?

    Exactly, I agree for all the stats except win rate. This forum is biased towards good and very good players - these will increase their win rate by changing to carriers. Should a worse than average player like myself change to CVs I suspect that it is more likely that I would be on the losing side if the other team had a better CV player. This of course applies to all classes, but, because CVs are OP and have a greater effect on the outcome of the game I would be more likely to be on the losing side in the game I was playing in a CV than with another class of ship and thus my win rate would drop by playing CVs.
  2. huymog

    defence of new port operation rigged to fail?

    I played this op twice today. The first game was magic, the whole team knew what to do, I was not hit once but had 7 kills, mostly DDs in a Leander. The 2 russian BBs were deadly to the cruisers. The trick seemed to be stay near or better just outside the defence perimeter. Move to get a good shot and concentrate fire on the lead bot. The 2 russian BBs were well positioned so 1 or the other had the cruisers or BBs broadside near but outside the defence perimeter. Our 1 DD stayed alive and took out the Izumo. And at least 2 of us remembered to cover the reinforcing cruiser. Choice of ships is important, I was very impressed with the russian BB for this op. The second was a complete disaster, we only killed one or 2 of the main wave and lost very quickly. Some ships went out to meet the enemy and were focus fired by the bots, from there on it was was rapidly downhill. I like this op. It is not too easy and needs intelligent positioning by all the team - and I know that is the biggest problem in the game.
  3. huymog

    Is this how CVs are intended to be "balanced"?

    Hmmm, I'm not a statistics man, but I don't think you can be sure to increase your win rate just by changing to CVs, teams are balanced and for every winning CV there will be a losing CV. Better players may be able to boost the win rate because the CV has a greater influence on the game, but then weaker CV players would see their win rate go down. I do agree with your statement for other stats, things like average damage and the Personal Rating could well be improved across the board by switching to CVs.
  4. huymog

    Is this how CVs are intended to be "balanced"?

    Apology accepted. Trouble is El2AzeR is very good. I've had the misfortune to see him/her carry the whole red team in a game - he/she is very good and knows how to exploit the OPness of current CVs.
  5. huymog

    Is this how CVs are intended to be "balanced"?

    El2AzeR said 1 CV per team, that is balanced - this is not the case in your reply.
  6. huymog

    Is this how CVs are intended to be "balanced"?

    A short summary of the CV problem!
  7. huymog

    CV vs DD: works as intended?

    I see your point with regard to there can be a limit on how many of the Hakuryu torpedo bomber sorties you can fly in a game IF you lose a significant number of them. But while waiting you could fly the other types of aircraft, although you may not want to as they are not overpowered like the Hakuryu's torpedo bombers. My comments were about the new CV's in general at all tiers. The wish to fly the OP Hakuryu torpedo bombers exclusively throughout a battle is a special case. In fact, I am pleased to be corrected and see that this may not always be possible, but you are likely to always be able to have something in the air. However, I do remain of the opinion that, as in reality, the only really effective way to balance the game without a swathe of gimmicky tricks, is to counter aircraft with aircraft. Bring back player controlled fighters and re-introduce the fleet defence role, or forget CVs altogether.
  8. huymog

    CV vs DD: works as intended?

    In the real world (read WW2 Pacific) when it was realised that CVs were the dominant class the primary aim of the combatants was to destroy the enemy's CVs to control the seas. The role of BBs and CA/CLs was to provide AA cover, and protect the CVs should any enemy surface ships get through to the fleet, most likely at night. The primary strike target of the CVs was the enemy's CVs. This is the type of play that WG could try to promote - which should include assisting surface ships to break through to the CV. In my opinion there are 3 main problems: The first is that there is no incentive for the CV to attack the other CV, the CV is more like a floating airfield, totally immune from any serious attack until possibly the endgame, when no more other ships are around. All other classes suffer because of this. The second is that there is no fully player controlled counter to attack/torpedo/divebomber aircraft. The best counter in the old version were the fighters, these could be used to intercept attacking aircraft, or drive off spotting aircraft. This aspect of play is completely missing in the new CV world. AA tweaks to ships will not be enough. The tactic of supporting ships when pushing by providing air cover has been abolished. The third is the concept that CVs have unlimited aircraft and can launch these at will. The CV captain has little incentive to conserve planes and act strategically, All he has to to is launch, attack, press F key, launch, repeat ad infinitum. There is no fear factor for a CV captain any more, he should be under threat of losing his ship, or running out of planes. This may be attractive to some less skilled players as they are guaranteed to be alive for most of a battle, but where is the skill, tactical thinking and positional skill that all other ship classes require of their captains to be a really good player. For an arcade game WOWs had (deliberate use past tense) an unusually high need for these skills, as opposed to the frenetic pushing of keys to get the maximum use out of the aircraft weapon. To me the infinite quantity of planes and the immediate relaunch is akin to DDs having reload times of 10 seconds on their torpedoes from T2 to T10. (Take tongue out of cheek!)
  9. huymog

    AI changes in coop?

    I believe there has been. I've now lost 5 times in a row at tier 2 and 3, I've not experienced anything like that before. The bots dodge most of my torpedos whereas only a couple of days ago I would hit multiple times with them. Also as the OP suggests, the bots are tactically much better than before. I think the change is for the good, 90% and higher win rates in coop as it has been up to now was not challenging enough. I will now have to relearn how the bots play - but gone are the days where it would be a fun run out to sink a few ships for therapeutic reasons.
  10. huymog

    An EASY way to fix radar problems

    I think that just preventing radar from seeing through islands would be enough of a nerf. I played my first radar ship the Chapayev a lot in the last season of ranked. The best use of radar I found was to use the radar when the spotted sign came up. Switch on the radar and find who was spotting me - almost always a destroyer - get a few rounds off and kill or drive him away. Very powerful use of radar IMHO without the nonsense of seeing through rock. Radar range should be at the detection range of the ship it is mounted on.
  11. huymog

    An EASY way to fix radar problems

    This may be true. But it would need the game designer(s) who asked for radar and sonar to be included to admit he had made a (stupid) mistake in the specification and go back to the coders to correct it, and then have to explain that to the players who are incapable of understanding that radar can not see through rocks. That is probably the more difficult process at WG. This looks like a marketing departments cover up for a poorly thought out game addition to me!
  12. huymog

    An EASY way to fix radar problems

    This is interesting. It makes me suspect (and I think I saw someone elsewhere on the forum make this point) that the programmers were never given the requirement (that is asked to program) that radar and sonar should not work through rock. This made for an easy implementation of just showing up anything within the sonar/radar circle range. Implementation of a requirement to not see through islands would require the more difficult change of integrating it into the line of sight routines. Hence their reluctance to change it. The clue is in the response "never given", it was never in WG's specification for the addition of radar and sonar into the game. I find the excuse that the players would not understand it to be an insult. Yes you can learn to live with it, but why insult those with an understanding of how things should work. And yes I know that the line of site mechanisms are not totally true to reality, but also not as obviously ridiculous as radaring through kilometres of mountain.
  13. huymog

    MM, genuinely concerned now chaps

    There is a graph shown above which shows a rapid increase in one sided battles between patch 0.5.13 and 0.6.1. Clans were introduced in 0.6.0. My suspicions. Clans significantly increased the numbers of divisions played. As players began to realise the advantages of division play particularly the top player loaded clans, the number of one sided battles increased rapidly.
  14. huymog

    MM, genuinely concerned now chaps

    I did suggest that divisions in random battles be abolished for the reason that the games no longer consist of a random group of players. I also agree that this will not happen and I too enjoy playing with clan mates when clan battles are not available. I also claimed that Divisions can be used to a players advantage, your own stats fully back up this statement. Congratulations on your numbers and hence your ability in the game, they are in a range I can not even begin to dream about. Back to your stats, you have a large number of games in total and in divisions of 3. Your overall win rate is 64.8% overall and increases to 72.3% in divisions of 3 with over 9300 battles overall and 2700+ in divisions of three. These are large numbers of games and the difference in win rate is considerable and not a statistical aberration. Your own numbers back up my statement that divisions can be used to pad win rates. Whether you play in divisions for win rate improvement or for the social aspect, only you can answer. Also, as I said earlier, players are entitled to use the rules of the game to their own advantage. What annoyed me more about your post was your disdain for players who are not as good as you at the game. Remember, if there were no potatoes, your win rate would drop. So-called potatoes are as entitled as you are to play the game, and some of us (me for example) still enjoy WOWS. Live with it - if you want challenging games all the time play clan battles or tournaments (as you probably already do). A player of your ability will still do well in those metas.
  15. huymog

    MM, genuinely concerned now chaps

    My point is that when WG introduced Divisions they introduced means to leverage an advantage which were not there before. I accept the OP's opinion that teamplay should be an integral part of the game. If people take advantage of Divisions good for them. On the other hand don't be surprised that there are players who will not like this and feel disadvantaged. Hence threads such this one where we are free to debate pros and cons of aspects of the game's MM. To the above, RNGesus will not sort this out as WG put in a mechanism which players can leverage. Personally I can live with things as they are and occasionally being in battles with players who are, as they are entitled to do, playing the system.