Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About Johmie

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

659 profile views
  1. Johmie

    CVs unplayable - demand refund

    I always assumed it only applied to the planes in the actual attack wing, but that was still useful. If you were attacking with two out of a squadron of six then there was one chance in three that the randomly applied damage would be halved, and then one chance in two it would be halved if that squadron (minus the ones that had gone home) made another attack, and then a 100% chance of it being halved if you made the third run. Now though you're taking full damage to the last of the "reserve" planes during the first run, full damage to the last of the "reserve" during the second run, and only during the third run does the damage reduction kick in as before. So I think that was probably what 1MajorKoenig was complaining about.
  2. Johmie

    Upcoming French Captain.

    Something they also mentioned in the plans for 0.8.7 is that there will be containers giving a chance for a mission for De Grasse, Aigle, Gascogne, or Le Terrible. So you might end up with the last of those and dodge well enough with this captain in command that Yakkety Sax begins playing and Swordfish from an unfortunate bottom-tier Ark Royal can't catch up with you in a stern chase.
  3. Johmie

    Attack wing damage reduction

    Stuntman did mention both 50% and 30% so I just did a quick training room test. With torpedo bombers and "dive" bombers (as Implacable) both were taking 130 damage a pop from the test Kagero. Trimming them down to just the single attack wing and making the runs this went down to 65 for torpedo bombers and 91 for the "dive" bombers, so it looks like the former get 50% reduction (as shown in Stuntman's video) and the latter 30%. But I don't remember any patchnotes about them making torpedo-bombers and bomb-bombers different.
  4. Johmie

    0.8.6 PTS - BUGS

    @Tuccy Missions are showing up now, thanks.
  5. Johmie

    0.8.6 PTS - BUGS

    1. Description https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/public-test/public-test-086/ shows "Play a Random or Co-op Battle", "Gain three victories on aircraft carriers in Random or Co-op Battles.", and "Earn three stars in the Raptor Rescue Operation." as being achievable twice, in both Round One and Round Two of the PTS. However these missions are not there to be completed again. 2. Reproduction steps I logged in to check the "Symbols of France" rewards and looked at the missions while I was about things (since there is so frequently a discrepancy between what the news page says and what the actual missions say), and found the missions were not listed. 3. Result Missions I expected to see were not there. 4. Expected result For the news page and the display of missions in-game to agree with each other.
  6. Johmie

    Naval Legends: Destroyer Maillé-Brézé

    They're not snowflakes, but the next update will have each ship marked with a "Symbol of France" that will give you coal (Tier VI or lower) or "Republic Tokens" (Tier VII or higher) and those look to work in a similar way; one bonus per ship for the first victory in that ship during 0.8.6. https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/public-test/bulletin-086/
  7. Johmie

    Thinking of rebuilding some DDs...

    It might be worth waiting a little to see what's happening with HE Penetration and IFHE. They haven't confirmed or denied whether the change to the strength of IFHE will also affect Destroyers, but one of the changes would mean that HE shells would penetrate if their penetration equalled or exceeded the armour thickness rather than only if it exceeded it.
  8. Johmie

    0.8.6 PTS - CV Bots & reworked Raptor rescue

    Mildly surprised how little difference it made having an enemy CV in the Co-Op game, and I'm not sure if that says more about how much I've stuck to Co-Op or how little interaction the carriers have. Agree that it is nice to have Raptor Rescue back, managed two five-stars and a fail, but perhaps slightly disappointed that it does feel "exactly like before"; I went into the first attempt waiting to be tripped up by my own expectations and wondering what new tweaks might have been added. One comment I'd make though is that if almost all of the ship changes, with the exception of the Emerald at Tier V and the King George V at Tier VII, are to ships at Tier VIII and above then even with the nominal research costs on the PTS it might make more sense to provide those ships rather than the highest level ones being Tier VI. (And the fact that I'm reluctant to "grind" to the Conqueror on the PTS to see how she feels with the changes speaks volumes about how reluctant I'd be to grind all the way back to her for the Naval Training nonsense.)
  9. I read the NA forums sometimes and something that's worth mentioning is that they recently removed the "Bad" thumbs-down response. So the lack of that is the lack of opportunity for them rather than lack of motivation. And I'll comment that I have spent money on the "grinds". When I started playing and began my progress up the RN Cruiser line I did buy doubloons and convert XP to get a ship sooner. When there's been a time-limited campaign for a ship I wanted I've bought premium time to have three tasks active and faster progress on XP and credits tasks. And when my year's Premium Time got close to running out I did add an extra 30 days to get myself more XP on the Implacable and more Free-XP, since I wanted the Audacious and was going to allow myself 100-200k of Free-XP to speed getting that and get the better planes. Then I let the Premium Time run out because I've got enough credits and didn't feel the urge to grind the Russian Battleships. So on their spreadsheets I'm possibly one of the people they are targeting with this. Someone who has shown a pattern of buying doubloons and premium time to ease the grind, hasn't bought any doubloons for a while and has let the premium time expire, but who might buy doubloons and premium time if they had something to grind for again. Except I won't; the focus has been on how the performance buffs would affect balance, and I commented how they'd affect some ships more than others, but there is the potato flip-side as well. I know I'm not good enough at this game that the sort of fine-tuning that differentiates the most skilled players from each other would make any real difference to my performance. Even the idiotically strong buffs they've backpedalled away from would fall within my margin-of-error, so if I have a choice between keeping my ships and having to go through a full grind to make one of them better then I'm going to keep my ships.
  10. Even leaving aside how bad an idea the whole concept is the implementation seems badly flawed for Cruisers and Battleships, unless they intend to have different bonuses for different nations. They were asked (in iChase's video) about balance problems and brushed that aside, but the same bonus applied to different things gives different results, so that does affect the balance. Giving the same buffs to all cruiser torpedoes doesn't really work when not all cruisers (none of the USN at Tier VI and above) have torpedoes. Giving the same buffs to battleship secondaries doesn't really work when some battleships have better secondaries than others and are intended to get in range to use them. Giving an extra charge to all consumables doesn't really work when some ships have more consumables or, perhaps more important, have been balanced by having better versions with fewer charges.
  11. Johmie

    Cv rework suggestions

    Two ideas; one that I posted in the general suggestions thread and one that I almost posted in the “unplayable!” thread before thinking better of it. First (repost) idea was to do with spotting and was a thought prompted by a book by a Seafire pilot where one chapter dealt with his squadron acting as artillery spotters for warships firing in support of the D-Day landings and opening battles of the Normandy campaign. This demonstrated two things, firstly that (at least for coastal bombardment) single seat fighters could direct the guns of cruisers and battleships towards a target and secondly that they couldn’t do that while under attack (and embarrassingly for the RAF one of the things that attacked them was a group of Spitfires, who managed to not notice that what they were attacking was almost identical to what they were flying). So the idea was that although I’d retain aerial spotting for all planes I would add an extra factor of how distracted the aircrews are by other things such as being shot at or by trying to carry out their own attacks. The level of distraction a squadron is suffering would be displayed as a bar that would empty and fill and change colour with the changes and as they became more distracted the spotting information provided to other ships would degrade from normal to minimap only to none. The distraction caused by the squadron making an attack run would be a fairly constant percentage across tiers and types of plane as what the aircrew are doing has also remained fairly constant. The distraction caused by the fighter consumable would also remain fairly constant for the same reason, though three fighters might provide a little more distraction than two and four a little more than three. But the values for how easy a type of plane is to distract by AA would vary based on the number of crew and the tiers. With a multi-seat plane the pilot could be concentrating on dodging while another crewman continued to observe and relay information, but with a single-seat plane the pilot would be having to try to do both and would likely prioritise not getting shot down. And the variation between tiers would be needed because of how much AA power increases; if the values weren’t tweaked then it would either be too easy for a high-tier ship to prevent any spotting or too difficult for a low tier ship to at least get itself to minimap only. The fighters of the fighter consumable would also be arbitrarily easy to distract to prevent the carrier player from using them as effectively to keep things spotted while there are either no player-controlled planes in the area or while those planes are distracted by making their attack runs. This would also affect ships’ fighter consumables though, so taking a spotter plane would have the benefit of it being harder to distract as well as the range-increase and the elevated view for firing at ships in smoke. In practical terms the aim would be to balance it so that heavy AA could prevent spotting, moderate AA could prevent spotting when combined with either the planes making their attack or fighters attacking them, and light AA could prevent spotting when combined with both those things. With the mini-map only spotting being one step down, moderate AA alone could make it this and light AA would need one of the other things. However what counts as heavy, moderate, and light would take some work to determine. I’d say a good baseline would be for a destroyer with good AA to have a chance of becoming mini-map only, especially against the single-seat rocket-firing planes, and even one with mediocre AA might become zero-spotting while the pilots are busy trying to aim. The other idea was one on an alternative for the AA continuous damage. It does annoy me, even as a potato, that Wargaming seem determined to stamp out any last vestigial elements of skill. Before the recent change there was at least some element of judgement and chance in a carrier player trying to manage his squadron’s health; do you risk another attack run or not? If the damaged planes get hit then you could lose more than it’s worth, but if the undamaged planes take most of the damage then the losses might be acceptable ones. But with the damage being focussed on one plane at a time there's no gamble involved, you will lose X amount of planes to X amount of AA so your decision would always be the same one. So what I’d have done would be to take the random-targeting and add a weighting for how damaged a particular plane was. Initially the AA would act the same as the previous system but as soon as a plane took damage it would have a slightly higher chance of taking more damage, and as planes took more damage this chance would increase. To put it in terms of numbers, though these are for example rather than something final, the previous random system would be picking a number between one and eight for an eight plane squadron. What I’d propose would be that it would be picking a number between one and eighty with each plane starting with ten of those points, so they’d start with the same one-in-eight chance of being hit. But each hit they took would increase their points and the total points by two, to a maximum of eighteen points just before they were destroyed. So if one plane took every hit then the chance it would take the next one would be getting on for close to double the chance that hit would strike one of the undamaged planes. Or perhaps make it non-linear; each hit adds more points than the last one did, which would be a simple way of simulating gun-captains noticing a plane is wounded and trying to finish it off. This is the sort of thing where the infamous spreadsheets would be very useful in letting you enter different values for how much to start with and how much to add at each hit and see how the degree of focus-fire varies. In practical terms the aim would be to keep some of the ability to gamble and make another attack run, but stack the odds a little more against the carrier player being able to soak the damage with his undamaged planes. More focus-fire than the random system, but less focus-fire than the “hey, we broke a skill and a consumable” target-last-plane-only system. EDIT: The thought occurred to me that as the game keeps track of individual plane health and total squadron health it might be better to use the same structure for the chance-to-hit, but with the effects of damage reversed. So the squadron-health and chance-to-hit would initially be identical duplicates of each other, but when a plane takes damage its health and the total squadron health would go down by that much and its hit-chance and the total of all the hit-chances would go up by that much. Or go up by that much times something; fiddling with numbers and having things go up and down by the same amount does seem about right, but multiplying it by something could let you fine-tune it. And although this fine tuning could be just used in general terms you could also use it to let different ships have different values to reflect how a ship with fairly inaccurate AA would find it harder to focus a particular plane than a ship with accurate AA guns would. Using the same structure for both things would have two advantages. Firstly it would be a smoother increase in how much more likely a plane is to be hit than what I suggested above, where I was thinking in terms of “undamaged, lightly-damaged... etc.” and incrementing things in stages. Secondly if you are using the same structure for both things then you can use the same functions, or slightly modified versions, to alter the values within the structure or to truncate the structure when a plane gets shot down or when an attack run’s planes go home and those are no longer part of the calculation. tl:dr 1 - Have planes able to be distracted by making their attacks or by being attacked, and have that affect the degree of spotting they can provide. tl:dr 2 - Make damage semi-random, rather than random or last-plane only, with the likelihood a plane gets hit increasing as it takes more damage.
  12. Johmie

    Update - Ranked Sprint Fix & More

    Wargaming, are you trying to sell doubloons? You change the way damage is applied to aircraft and make one captain skill close to useless, and then "balance" that by increasing the effect of a different captain skill. So it certainly looks like you're trying to provoke people into spending the 500 doubloons to reset their carrier commanders. Not that I expect many people would as even if they didn't use elite-commander XP instead they'd not trust you enough to gamble the doubloons against you making another change and making something else useless and trying to provoke another captain skill reset. And I'm talking as someone who doesn't have Adrenaline Rush on any of my Carrier Captains and does have Survivability Expert on them, so my guys are getting a buff and I don't need to reset any and I still think this foolish.
  13. Or just deselect them from being displayed in the usual carousel manner. Picture from https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/rogue-wave/
  14. Johmie

    OH look what WG inspired

    @wot_2016_gunner There is the problem of the name of Guy Gibson's dog, but on the other hand the Dambusters were who sank the Tirpitz, though as the Fjord was shallow enough part of the deck was still above water there were Royal Navy officers who (allegedly) claimed it didn't count. As to 633 Squadron I do think it would be a nasty surprise for Flambass when he goes middle on Two Brothers if the Indomitable's Sea Hornets could emulate their older cousins and bring a chunk of the mountain down onto him below.
  15. Johmie

    how to upgrade to next rogue wave ship

    The ships are awarded by the appropriate combat missions, so you should get the second one of the type once you've earned 7500 base XP on the first one and then the third one once you have earned 12 500 base XP on the second.