• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About FishDogFoodShack

  1. Usually this kind of topic pops up when someone wants to figure out an "endgame" goal to work towards, but also one that is meta enough to perform and hasn't been powercrept ... but HEY its an excuse to list favourites so who cares :D In truth it is hard to objectively name a best, I personally find WoWs comparatively well balanced and national counterparts each have a niche they excel in. Pick the pretty ones. Tier 6: DD: Shinonome/Farragut CA: Aoba/Cleveland BB: Fuso Tier 7: DD: Shiratsuyu CA: Fiji BB: Nagato/Scharnhorst Tier 8: (best tier tbh, no ship in this tier is a slouch imo) DD:Kiev/Lo Yang CA: Mogami/Kutuzov/Edinburgh/Charles Martel (so many good cruisers!!!) BB: Amagi Tier 9: DD: Fletcher CA: Dm. Donskoi/Roon BB: Missouri Tier 10: DD: Khabarovsk CA: Hindenburg/lol khabarovsk BB: Montana and CVs? lol all the IJN ones stomp. EDIT: 159Hunter has it on the ball, it really, really depends on what you want to do and how you want to do it.
  2. How utterly disappointing. Where the Bismarck collection gave us dozens of miniature objectives to complete, each with a pleasant reward of strong signal flags on top of collection items and credits for duplicates ... We get teased wit the fact that these containers should be even better because they might have a premium ship in them! of course even with Bismarck collection container numbers the chances of actually getting that would be slim to none, but hey, better is better. But with these containers behind a daily timer and a paywall, what were low chances are even more stinted.
  3. I'm utterly perplexed, the only way to complete the collection that I've managed to find thus far is a non-repeatable mission to get 2k base exp per day, and another similar mission that can only be completed with the gallant. No campaign, and the operation doesn't list collection boxes as a reward. Are we really limited to getting one collection item per day? two if we throw some money at a British dd?
  4. DDs are not nearly as rare (or irritating) as another particular class however ...
  5. There will always be someone who calls you an idiot, regardless of how right (or wrong?) you may actually be. That said, all the things you've listed can be done both effectively or improperly depending on the circumstances (though redline sniping is almost never something you should do imo, you'll never actually contribute to a win) You've also only participated in some 300 battles - just play more and figure out what wins games at your own pace until you know exactly what people expect from you in a BB without having to ask.
  6. Even ignoring the "final bundle" build up, the Tirpitz itself seems like just such an odd choice. It is available constantly on both the in-game tech tree and in the store - it has been since I've started playing. Not only that but it feels like everyone who wanted the damn thing has already bought it seeing as going without seeing one in a high tier game is something of a rarity. Its the most promiscuous premium ship in the game - a good ship to be fair - but 30% off for it wouldn't have been particularly special any day of the summer sale, let alone the final stretch.
  7. EDIT: forum deleted like half my post? I feel like I need to clarify: dispersion values would not change as increased range = increased dispersion already. Damage falloff would mean that those exact stray shells that cit you despite both angling and evasive maneuvers would deal less damage than a citadel hit that took place within optimal range. instead dealing maybe 20-25% less or something depending on how far past optimal range the shells traveled. As aforementioned, penetration falloff isn't always enough on many cruisers because of overmatching. Not being able to deal full damage from long range would make BB sniping less effective, therefore MAYBE encouraging players to move within 15km of cap circles. AP damage is calculated differently true, but each gun's tooltips lists maximum potential damage of both HE and AP - damage falloff would reduce that maximum by a scaling percentile past optimal.
  8. Been lurking long enough I think, and while I probably won't end up posting or responding to much after this I had an idea today that might be worth some salt. I've seen a plethora of threads talking about BB balance: their ability to delete cruisers and the insistence of some players to reverse to the edge and take potshots at max range for the entire match. Experience matches with this sort as well, though I don't think it is as prolific a problem as it is made to seem, it is still a pain in the [edited], especially on the days that I want to take grind up cruiser lines. I have towonder, would the implementation of a damage falloff system help to ease this? If there is already such a thing in game I've not noticed it beyond dispersion at longer ranges, and I believe WoT has a falloff-like system in regards to penetration. For anyone who doesn't understand what I mean: the game right now has a gun's range listed as a maximum firing range, beyond that a player needs to form their own conclusions about how close to that number their optimal range may be before shell dispersion takes too overwhelming a toll and makes a salvo nigh pointless doe to an utter lack of accuracy. Beyond this accuracy penalty firing at maximum range has no drawbacks and is more rng/luck based, and meaning cruisers can be magically popped from some incredible range should they be detected for more than ten seconds. This apparently encourages newer players to achieve that max range number and sit there, regardless of how good an idea that may or may not be, hence the camping problem and cruisers being deleted without a real fight. So why stop there with max range downsides? Damage Falloff means that the further a shell travels past it's optimal range, the less damage it will do, meaning shells fired 21km from your opponent may not hit at all due to dispersion, and if they do they'll do less damage than a shell fired from 18km, and much less than one fired from 15km. Gun stats and readouts in the port would reflect this, instead of reading just max range it would list optimal range, followed by maximum range. Shots fired from within falloff range would deal full damage if they penetrate, not accounting for the RNG already in place. They would NOT receive a damage buff when within falloff range, just have the potential to deal their "on-paper" damage. no falloff difference between HE and AP as their innate mechanics balance them out already. I imagine the idea behind such a would be explained with wind resistance on the shell, reducing it's speed and therefore penetrating power after leaving the barrel. For example, in a battleship (the main class of vessel this mechanic would be needed for) you would suffer the most extreme variety of damage falloff as your guns fire the largest shells, the size and weight of which would lead to increased air resistance. To use t8 battleships as examples, their max ranges are from 19.9 (Amagi) to 23.3 (NCal) These ships would maintain their maximum ranges, but suffer damage falloff after a certain distance not far from what their "optimal" range is right now due to dispersion, somewhere between 14-17km. The exact number would vary between Bismarck, NCal, and Amagi for diversity and balance's sake. This new "hard" optimal range would be shown on the gun or FCS module of the ship, giving inexperienced BB players a more enticing distance to aim for and hopefully, moving some of them away from lines 1 and 10. There is of course also cruisers, which at t8 average at about 15km max range. for falloff to work I think they'd need a range buff to an average of about 17, and could suffer falloff from perhaps 14 - less severe than the battleships because of their smaller damage potential and caliber guns. Destroyers would naturally suffer the least drawbacks and have optimal ranges very near their maximum, and maybe even barely being able to notice falloff penalties the closer to that max they are. A Kiev can reach out to something like 14.3km with the right captain skills, and it's optimal might be as high as 13.5, suffering negligible falloff penalties but be balanced out by it's naturally small gun caliber and damage. MAKE NO MISTAKE that I claim that this idea would work in the state I have explained it in, of course the exact numbers are hard to guess at without real testing, nor would damage falloff be easy to implement as it would require a whole new string of mathematical calculations for the game to make before a player decides to left click. I believe World of Tanks already has something in place similar to this that affects penetration values, but I'm only about ankle deep in that game so far and can't claim to know for sure. I also can't boast about a huge number of matches in game, something like 1400 last I checked? which means I am of course less experienced than the majority who seem to be active here (I like to think I'm above average but I'm sure everybody does). I also know next to nothing about ACTUAL naval warfare mechanics so I've no idea if this suggestion holds any weight in regards to such a thing, but realism needs to take a backseat to gameplay on occasion, no? Would this system be viable? why and why not?has it been suggested before/already exists and if so, how could it be altered to help ease the issue of campy BBabies? falloff could encourage players to move forward instead of backpedal. TLR would a damage falloff system work in WoWs