Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About LazyInsight

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

610 profile views
  1. Has anyone considered that it is simply a mistake in wording: "Leaving the battle early" might be used for actually leaving early as well as for not proving yourself (to punish botting and people who would suicide early). So maybe there is another type of warning message, not displayed because of a bug. Or it might be an oversight in not providing other type of warnings. It would be nice if there was value of base XP gained in match shown in the initial post.
  2. LazyInsight

    When you solo push and get chat banned

    1. If you are in a ship that is a torpedo boat (most DDs) or can be turned into one ad hoc (Ibuki, Mogami) you simply sail in front of aproaching enemy fleet and slow them down with torp attacks. 2. If you are in a kiting style cruiser; Zao, French, Germans, or just a long range one (like Soviet), you keep your distance in front of enemy approach, setting as much fires as possible. This forces focused ships to slow down to drop into stealth. 3. If you are in CV or BB you follow the train 4. If you are in a Conqueror it is decision between nr 2 and nr 3 5. If you are in a Khabarovsk: I have no idea.
  3. LazyInsight

    The Reason why people dont play CV

    Originally for WoWs, CVs were supposed to be recon ships. I think at some point there was even WG idea to provide them with scout squadrons. Currently they are what they were initially designed for; being eyes of the fleet, and trying to deny eyes of enemy fleet. Awkward AA mechanics and poor understanding of game concepts by number of players also make them one of the major damage dealers in random battles.
  4. LazyInsight

    CV's current state and population - an analysis

    So about 60% of games with CVs in them. From my observation ( grinding two DD lines right now at low tiers) this is about true for CVs of tier 4, 5, and 6.
  5. LazyInsight

    Notsers CV video

    I do think CVs need rework badly and enjoy discussion about the topic of changes but I do really hate all the hysteria and downright hypocrisy around the subject. Considering there are already threads about CV balance on these forums I am just going to answer arguments Notser has, rather than discussing the rework itself: 1. Notsers argument: people have stopped playing CVs because it is RTS mode is wrong, because if people do not like mode, they would stop at Tier 4 / Tier 5 and not grind up to high tiers while also buying premium CVs 2. His argument; new people are not playing CVs because it is RTS and experience gained in other classes does not transfer well is actually sound (the argument is right) but the premise is wrong. It is so because his argument is only an assumption not backed by any data. People that quit playing CVs were not asked by WG why did they stopped. So because the argument is purely an assumption I have my own here: If CV RTS style would be more polished, with responsive controls, good presentation of effects, graphics and information and solid tutorials were provided then more players would keep playing the class. 3. Numerous false issues with core game mechanics like: CV can oneshot any ship (not true because of df AA), CV has universal scouting tool ( not true because of smoke screens), it is just CV vs CV and the rest of the team has nothing to say about it (even though massive AA ships like Mino / Hinden / Des Moines and even DDs with defensive AA exists) 4. Argument about new players being in tough spot because the skill of potentiall opponent they will face, is true for any other class and even any other adversarial type of game, no matter whether it is RTS or not. New players are indeed in tough spot but it is not related to game being RTS (such statement simply invalidates existence of actuall RTS games like StarCraft or Company of Heroes), so argument is fallacious because it simply misses the point. 5. He contradicts himself in this example: if it is just CV vs CV and the rest of the team has nothing to say, and after that he says that divisioned CV is much more powerful, wouldn't that mean that other ships than CV matter a lot as well?
  6. LazyInsight

    about PVE!!

    I don't think it can actually be bombed. If CV targets it with bombers, they will fly to the border and drop their payload into the ocean (where Rouan exited). I saw that happen once, it could be a bug.
  7. LazyInsight

    Symmetrical MM in 0.7.4

    I think i prefer symmetrical over +/- 1 (though if both could work at the same time that would be amazing) Symmetrical removes the issue with DD mismatches, including severe ones like 1Khaba on one team vs lets say Shima + Fletch on the other. Matches like that tend to be extremely passive with match ending fast with very little fighting and small number of ship sunk. +/- 1 helps with very powerfull ships facing very weak ones, but it only accomplishes it partially. It solves the problem with low tier cruisers facing high tier cruisers/BBs and issue with CVs vs too high or too low AA. But it does not help with lets say T7 DD without concealment module facing T8 ship that has one. In my opinion, things that +/- 1 wants to accomplish should be done by changing hard stats on ships (for example raising range of cruisers, or increasing innate concealment of some ships), and maybe some additional MM exception rules for CVs (but proper AA balancing would simply be best solution).
  8. LazyInsight

    Carrier Rework and the artificial fog around it

    I would be fine with CVs being RTS based control class. My main issues with carriers, that make me click BATTLE less than I would like: - poor visualization of combat; you are provided with too little information regarding status and actions of yours, friendly and enemy squadrons and ships - inefficient control scheme, and impossibility to rebound important keys aside from using scripts like AHK - bad responsivness to input; squadrons often ignore orders especially when issued in rapid succession - lack of CV specific team play support in UI; no CV unique quick commands, especially in relation to matches with two CVs per team - UI bugs; losing ability to draw selction box over multiple squadrons for example Two things about this: 1. CCs / Supertesters can only say anything when they get something to actually test. Currently the new CV controll scheme is not even in internall testing for developer team let alone outsiders. 2. About input of experienced players: in terms of generall direction of the game like: role of different classes, how they play and are controlled - input from experienced ones is not really of big value (but neither is input coming from inexperienced ones). It is important regarding metagame and hard stats; how ships and classes compare to each other in strenghts and abilities. One thing has to be remembered: How ships are ballanced has to be directly linked to the generall concept behind the game. What is WG generall concept currently? To make CVs less RTS (or maybe even non RTS at all) class. But with change like that, things like surface AA, captain skills, AA mechanics itself, number of squadrons / planes in squadrons / planes in reserve etc. will be different as well. And this is where experience with the game is usefull.
  9. LazyInsight

    Carrier Rework and the artificial fog around it

    Oh interesting, where this info was given? I don't remember this being mentioned in Waterline. Yes, but currently they are not even at internal testing level with this. They just provided the concept of the changes and not the metagame numbers / hard stats. Also to make strike focused CV viable in controlled enviroment like Clan Wars (where everyone is going to bring AA focused ships), either the strike potential of CV is going to be buffed or the AA on surface ships is going to be considerably nerfed.
  10. LazyInsight

    Carrier Rework and the artificial fog around it

    But they will remain in game and everybody knows that. So what is the point in your post? I get you don't know to play against them.....But it is your foult. It is only class you can get 100% immune of you know how to play. The battle of the Eagles, you two should 1v1 to decide who is right. You know, if this was just nerfs coming, it wouldn't be a big deal. WG is planning to change the class at the core. How the CV is controlled, what is its role, interactions with surface ships. This will enforce changes to captain skills, UI, consumables (like DefAA), generall ship balance (strong AA ships vs weak AA ones). This is not nerfs or buffs to CV class, it is a grand scale change to the game. There are many aspects. So much could go wrong and that is what people dread.
  11. LazyInsight

    Carrier Rework and the artificial fog around it

    This has already been provided in Waterline 1.1: CVs are supposed to be strike focused, damage dealers where player takes direct controll over single squadron. The amount of recon CV is providing is being reduced. AA is to be reworked by allowing more interactions between surface and air. If CV owner doesn't like the class after rework, some kind of compensation will be given. How the heck are they going to accomplish all that? No idea, but basic outline has been shown.
  12. LazyInsight

    Carrier Rework and the artificial fog around it

    My opinion is that WG is not completely sure about what to do with CVs, so they don't release much information. It is most likely to prevent situation that we had with Graff Zeppelin and its many iteration. When ship provided to public was different than the tested versions that were shown to us by Community Contribiutors. This leads to massive criticism by most and even to someone losing his CC position. WG decided not to provide info so they can not be criticised for fake advertisement on changes, because said changes may not be final ones.
  13. LazyInsight

    Waterline discussion

    Who is the artist who made art for T-shirts they are wearing?
  14. LazyInsight

    MM sucks balls

    How is this a matchmaking fault? If bad players are waiting in queue, they have to be put in a match. MM will not summon bunch of excellent players, it will just make teams form what is available.
  15. LazyInsight

    Ranked battle - Career simulator

    Its already factored in as a %WR (average chance to win) in the OP thread. How did he assumed its going to be 49,9% though? There is big difference between ranks 15 to10, and 10 to 1. Namely; rank 10 and below use tier 10 ships, which was never done before. So even if your assumption of 49,9% WR may be spot on perfect for tier 8 ships, how do you even assume your %WR for using tier 10 ships. Have you actually somehow played ranked season using T 10 ships (and I don't mean tier 10 matches after reaching rank one). You would need to provide at least % chance for not losing a star, but there are numerous issues with the premise of the analysis: - asumption that %WR will stay constant over time ( this value depends on how long ranked was going on, and how high rank you currently are on - chance to not lose a star behaves similar to %WR so it is not going to be constant value. - analysis can not be made for multiple ship types combined; some ships can have higher %WR but are more likely to lose a star on defeat, while other win less but will keep star more often - "fake" margin for error -> assumed %WR will still be modified by losing game at rank 10 and not losing a star due to irrevocable position, this will inflate number of matches and drop %WR, but it will have no influence on chance of actually reaching rank 1 (you could lose 1000 matches at rank 10 and then easily progress to get rank 1 with extremelly low win rate)