Jump to content
Server Restart - On the 17/09 the server will be unavailable for 1 hour Read more... ×

KtX2SkD

Players
  • Content Сount

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1832
  • Clan

    [WAZ]

About KtX2SkD

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. KtX2SkD

    PT 0.10.5 - General Feedback

    06052000@+3, 5.5. Feedback for round 2: At the start of round I had both Hannover and Satsuma locked. Initially, the game was prompting me "you sure you wanna spend trials on Hannover?" despite me selecting Satsuma. I tried multiple times before paying the trials and the same mis-prompt came up. Hannover did also show when attempting to unlock Hannover, and Hannover got indeed unlocked when I paid in the prompt that comes by clicking Satsuma. Later on, the issue ceased despite me having both ships locked again. I did not see the "two stars in Naval Battle" mission in-game, but then again I wonder if I didn't look well/early or it was indeed not displayed. Now that I think about it, why are there still punishments for friendly fire if you will prevent damage? The harm within the crime cannot be committed anymore, but the punishment was made harsher??? I doubt it's about missed ordinance... seeing I don't get reprimanded when firing at islands or before any enemy is spotted. Minor Suggestions: For Naval Battle: You know how for both missions and campaigns there are icons that inform what kinds of battle are compatible for the rewards? Maybe introduce something similar in Naval Battle screen. The idea is those icons are (I think) dynamically concluded by the code based on what battle types are actually supported, in contrast to the text that is within Naval Battle rules page that states what battle types are supported, which is both in-between pages of text lines, and subject to getting outdated whenever someone doesn't timely update the text, compared to the code immediately auto-presenting the list of compatibility. For Public Tests: Perhaps reduce the regulations on creating and deleting clans. Game stated I cannot join a clan for three days after leaving one. It wasn't a problem for these rounds but generally it's not convenient either, and it could possibly become an issue for some future round so it's better to adjust it sometime before that. - KitCat.
  2. KtX2SkD

    PT 0.10.5 - General Feedback

    @300ConfirmedKills I think you can see it by pressing ESC, but it's not necessary because your nickname at the top is already appended by the region if you're on PT, isn't it? For example I have "_EU" added to my PT name.
  3. KtX2SkD

    PT 0.10.5 - General Feedback

    - continued - About removal of friendly fire (FF): I'm just returning after a year's break and this is catching me both by surprise AND disappointment. For me it is quite defining to the game the aspects of planning-ahead, communication, and immersion, all of which are supported by FF presence. While what we had was only partial FF, and while I wouldn't ask for making it more liberal, I certainly don't look forward for its removal. I understand pressing issues need to be addressed whenever there are any, but I've never felt there were any, and even if there were then I believe several alternative solutions could've & should've been pursued instead. What's mainly needed is to know when to tone-up or tone-down consequences of FF, and for accurate execution of that there need to be measures for levels of carelessness and accidental-versus-intentional scenarios. Let's try & break them one by one: For ramming, sure, remove FF, because honestly any concerning harms (whether accidental or intentional) are not from its damage, but from its movement sabotage, so FF or no FF is barely relevant here. For guns, my knowledge is that unlike damage towards enemies, they deal massively reduced damage in FF. If so, then addressable just as ramming. If they deal considerable damage however, then my experience is that accidents with them are rare (1 in #00), and dangerous hits ought to be even rarer (1 in ##000), so I doubt that's the cause of this change. If intentional damage cases are the problem, note they are already impaired by lack of lock, and intent can be easily confirmed with both reports and lack of proximity of enemies to victim, justifying increased punishment. Amount of intentional cases outside of the described are probably 1 in #000 matches at most and even then reports are there to serve us. Torpedoes are probably the biggest scenario of concern here, but in my experience even their FF is reasonably rare. If it really needs to be addressed however, then let's approach it by type. Key elements of intentional FF is report presence and low torpedo travel time until impact, which are easy to log. If necessary (and hopefully easy), maybe log victim trajectory both original and changes after-firing, and perhaps trajectories of enemies and target-enemy as well. Accidental FF should be evaluated by torpedo travel time, with very low time possibly not that different in treatment from intentional FF, and very high time (e.g. 1 to 2 minutes) garnering no or less punishment and in fact maybe reprimanding both parties. I doubt the motive behind FF removal is people victimizing themselves by running into torpedoes, but if it was then ideas of travel time and trajectory logging noted above should help against this. All of the noted can be supplemented by accounting for the victim's ship type, maneuverability, or characteristics. I didn't really have carrier-originating FF in my mind so far, and I doubt it's even a thing, but anyone who read this far will have an idea which methods from the above I would suggest to address that, after all it's not thaaat different. All of the provided can also be supported by expanding/re-working the B-menu (the F1, F2, F3, etc.) with e.g. messages to alert allies of specific allied threats, or to point directly at torpedoes using F3 itself. If FF removal was necessarily going to stay... I would like for alerts of FF the player would've caused to NOT be reduced. I tested FF in PT and I've only seen some text in the center bottom of screen that I've barely seen even though I wasn't in the midst of battle, and the chat alert seems to have been removed which is what I almost always have relied on to know if I ever caused FF. I believe is it CRITICAL to ensure players know of every FF they caused even if it doesn't cause damage to allies, because FF still wastes offensive potential or impairs movement, and every instance of knowing about a mistake is an instance of potential improvement. Last thing I want as a player is to discover that during my last 100 games or so I've been committing potential FF without realizing it because alerts were too minor or none at all. I'll then be like "oh god how many times did I waste torpedoes on allies when I assumed I missed an enemy" or during some one game be like "OMG Y U NO INSTANTLY TELL ME I'M RAMMING SO I IMMEDIATELY CORRECT CONTROLS INSTEAD OF LEAVING MY FULL STOP EXTENDED TO DIE BY CITADEL". Also, some allies will want to be alerted about allied torpedoes to do their best to either allow them to pass and hit intended target or to save their ally a penalty they don't believe they ought to receive. In addition, I'd like to take this chance to bring attention to a post by <Figment> bringing up a few different concerns in case FF removal is staying. Hope this helps, and may things proceed to the best... - KitCat.
  4. KtX2SkD

    PT 0.10.5 - General Feedback

    210601150000+0 Feedback on round 1: Core Changes: Inadequate info on gains or spendings of new currency related to "Grand Battle": Initially you only know the game-mode grants it, but later on you discover you need to use typical ships to gain it, not the new ships. Also, you later find out you need to spend currency for each play-through of the new ships. Better information delivery before-hand would be appreciated. "Grand Battle" event UI is too empty. It has only two things: History information about the two ships playable, and a non-working button for some video. Comments about removal of friendly fire in a separate post below. Plane-based bullets is cosmetically cool. PT Mission Stuff: Rockets mission applicable to "Grand Battle" by in-game info and testing, but ruled-out on news article. Random Battle missions restricted to certain tiers which isn't listed on news article. Commander Skill Stuff: Skill for "INCOMING FIRE" seems almost completely defective, at least on the battleship I tried. One battleship skill stated it grants extra charge(s) for "Damage Control" (R), but isn't that always infinite? - continued -
  5. So, I wanted to try & find the game files handling the cut-scenes & cinematics, like on loading or when debuting events, and get them in a playable format. I actually managed to acquire the video content, but without the audio. This is pretty much my first time doing any of this, and even though it's probably short & trivial I've already ran out of moves. I'm hoping someone got any clues on how to get the audio to work, preferably having both V&A on a unified file. This is the folder I've identified to contain the game's cinematics. If there is another one though, I'd be glad to know: \Games\World_of_Warships_EU\res\gui\video\ and as to what methods/resources I've used so far: https://blog.benjojo.co.uk/post/usm-video-format https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport/comments/50kmnd/how_do_i_convert_usm_to_mp4_or_some_other_video/ https://forum.worldofwarships.asia/topic/21420-the-video-on-the-login-screen/ Hope someone can help out. Forward thanks. - KitCat.
  6. KtX2SkD

    0.8.6 PTS - General feedback

    Yeah I also couldn't proceed beyond Rank 3, then again considering the reward & progress is shared between all rounds, and the restrictions on tier, ship type, and the requirement of 6v6 (probably because that's what they want to test), it's imperative we try & finish this the earliest we can. Even without considering any rewards, the remaining factors will still play against the favor of Ranked. Back to OP, round #2 feedback (was not in round #1): Sometimes when turning manually (via A and D), turn sound effects similar to automatic turns (Q and E) are issued. Autopilot is really clumsy in turns right now. It sometimes forgets turning outright. At other times, it turns without accounting for the fact that it's switching between forward & backward movement. From the carrier's perspective, was the sound of a plane's destruction changed? In the few matches I've played, I rarely recall hearing the usual sound, and I'm yet to recognize if there was either a replacement for it, a change of volume, or just total omission. In one instance, it seemed as if the only ship torpedo of my salvo that managed to hit my enemy, somehow dealt a duplicate instance of damage to him about 0.5 seconds after initial impact & damage. That 2nd instance resulted in the target's death, and sadly I'm not confident of my observation of ribbons during the incident, and I forgot to review post-match results to cross-check them against present clues. Hope this helps. Good luck. - KitCat.
  7. KtX2SkD

    0.8.6 PTS - CV Bots & reworked Raptor rescue

    Round #2 feedback (was not in round #1): In one co-op match, only one enemy remained alive for the last 10 minutes or so. It was a carrier, but it never launched *any* planes for all that time. Close to the end, all ships of both sides were concentrated at the NW quarter, when suddenly an enemy torpedo squadron showed up from SE. I think, despite him having vision of us, the enemy carrier strangely kept his planes in a holding pattern somewhere at a deserted quarter/corner. In another co-op match, an ally Japanese cruiser (probably T6) fired torpedoes at map bearing 135, where the only alive enemy ship was a carrier at map bearing 45, 5-15 km away, and he was seeing that enemy and sailing directly towards it. My only guesses are that he tried to either torpedo enemy planes, or his torpedo bearing advisory decided to go nuts and point to a lead of at least 5 minutes. Hope this helps. - KitCat.
  8. KtX2SkD

    0.8.5 PTS - Rogue Wave event

    Round #2 feedback related to "Savage Battle" (AWOL on round #1): Ships have AA, and it can be destroyed. It's unnecessary to know that you destroyed enemy AA or lost your own, and hopefully their existence does not cause certain damage to be absorbed into the AA rather than be dealt to other ship parts if AA wasn't existent. If that is the case, hopefully it didn't slip by unconsidered. For team colors, two shades of yellow is not cool, at least on my setup that is, since I can hardly tell them apart. Couldn't you pick any of the 17,000 other colors? Go green. Consumable collection is consistently not collectable for the first second(s) after the timer expires. Consumables on the map, may you please consider for the map to illustrate time remaining? Off the top of my head I recall locked being grey, unlocked white? Then maybe as time passes, more & more of the circle icon turns from grey to white. Hopefully this or some other approach would be useful & noise-free. On a few occassions the camera jumped extremely high & then returned down, obviously it's probably due to a conflict with high buildings, especially since it only happened when they were opposite to the front of the camera & very close to my ship. Both the environment (consumables & fire considered) and the lack of rewards for killing enemies seem to pose only a mild or no incentive for seeking to encounter enemies, so teams might be tempted to wait the game out until other enemies wear each other out. Now this isn't necessarily a flaw, as such knowledge is not hardly-realized or inaccessible to any participants, and hence it might be their liability for not concluding or valuing it into their actions. It also might not be a clear & objective fact, but rather a subjective matter of perspective. I suppose it would constitute a flaw if, for example, eventually the majority of teams end up playing passively, shifting the game-mode to something the majority dislikes, both the ones who caused this meta, and the ones who didn't. On a lesser note, if you want to cater to the less-smart who leeroy-jenkins into battle... but reworking the environment for such purpose is a can of worms. Tip the newbies off, if they don't listen, then would all that safe-guarding be worth it? Ramming is de $#!^ XD: If people are yet to abuse it, they might do so very soon. I liked how a weapon that is rarely ever viable or considered, now is a valid staple choice and in fact something to plan with & against as much as other weapons. It felt remarkable being able to get two last-seconds-decelerate ramming kills & still staying alive. You might wanna review ramming mechanics, including its signal & viability to repair consumable, and be sure it all fits as-is for this game-mode. All in all, lovely game-mode. Hope it stays so until the last game :) - KitCat.
  9. KtX2SkD

    0.8.4 - PTS - Ranked with CVs

    An inquiry rather than feedback, reaching Rank 1, it would have required at least ~30 victories, correct? I didn't get to participate in Ranked this test, but I'd still like to know the requirement of the enlisted reward. - KitCat.
  10. KtX2SkD

    0.8.4 - PTS - CVs Improvement

    During round 1: There was an observable delay between commanding the planes to release their ordinance, and the actual release, which is very misleading considering the intuitive purpose of aim indicators. Don't recall observing it anymore in round 2و so hopefully it got fixed. I've incurred one incident where my planes decided to fly a 360 over 2 seconds. I sadly cannot recall the situation's specifics but at least I wanted to let you know this still occurs. In both rounds I believe: If the match ends while you're flying planes, you're prone to receive the audio message of "we lost planes". Planes have a severely higher ability to turn when they're just taking off. Sorry for the delay, & hope this helps, even though it's definitely not close in detail & quality to the others' contributions this time around. They presented some really interesting stuff. - KitCat.
  11. KtX2SkD

    0.8.3 - PTS General Feedback

    Sorry for the late reply. I suppose you're referring to point #2? Sadly, I don't have replays or screen-recording configured, and considering my machine is almost flat-lining when I'm running the game, I doubt it's capable of simultaneously running both them & the game. Sorry I couldn't be of any more help than this, best of luck though. - KitCat.
  12. KtX2SkD

    0.8.3 - PTS General Feedback

    For round #2, a few minor notes besides what was provided in other sections: The "Developer Bulletin" seems to be lacking in regards to the specifics values of points in "Victory Competition". You ought to have both in-game images titled "Scoring Points" and "Difficulty Levels" present in the article(s). Not sure if PT-specific, but while using T10 Japan Torpedo Bombers, I've incurred a bug where both engine boost bar and aim indicator (before engaging an attack) were both gone. Not sure about the during-attack aim indicator, and I think all was auto-resolved later on during the same match. Probably not PT-specific: At port, within carrier's "Ship Parameters" section, "Aircraft" sub-section presents "1 squadron" as the only piece of information available without hovering the mouse. This is probably in relation to the old carrier model of multi-squadron and multi-tasking, which is now obsolete. It also wastes the chance of presenting relevant information without hovering. Hope this helps, Good luck. - KitCat.
  13. KtX2SkD

    0.8.3 - PTS Victory event

    Please be advised, while hovering over the portraits of "Honor" and "Glory" representatives, both are displaying the message "Team Honor". Also, adding on @Nautical_Metaphor's point: If Personal Orders reward the player regardless of a win or loss, then the current values for activities don't make sense. Take the following thought experiment: If going east guarantees victory by sacrificing the Personal Order, while going west guarantees the Personal Order at the cost of victory, should the two be really equivalent in terms of score values? That means considering scores alone, my own best interests can be equivalently pursued in either directions. Should that really be the case? Can you really rely on other factors such as win rate, potential exp. & credits, or team spirit to properly dissuade players from taking such selfish choices? Another thought experiment: Let's say as soon as the match starts, the player checks & evaluates all known factors for the match, e.g. ships of both teams, positions of his allies, the divisions, and the map. From this eye-blink analysis at 1st second, he concludes the following: A victory-oriented play-style needs opening moves A, C, and G. It has 55% chance of achieving victory, and 20% of achieving Personal Order. A personal-order-oriented play-style needs opening moves R, C, and T. It has 40% chance of achieving victory, and 70% of achieving Personal Order. Assuming my logic & math are both correct, with the current score values the 1st option would value towards the 2nd option as 60 to 88, putting the 2nd option as a more sensible option for a player looking for activity scores. Even if I'm not hitting the mark, you definitely have an idea of what I'm trying to get at: Provided that rewards from Personal Orders do not require a win, then care should be taken in regards to scores of orders and wins relative to each other, since they could have the potential to encourage or dissuade players from selfish behavior. Decide on what you want, play with the numbers, and see if & how much does the current system achieve what you want. Good luck. - KitCat.
  14. KtX2SkD

    0.8.3 - PTS Ranked season improvements

    Please note, clicking "Season details" on "Ranked Battle" gave the following messages: Top: "500 INTERNAL SERVER ERROR" Middle: "WEB SERVER IS UNAVAILABLE" - KitCat.
  15. KtX2SkD

    0.8.3 - PTS General Feedback

    Round #1 feedback, unable to participate: Unlike other tests, download & setup finished with a wait on some "check and install" button, which when clicked started extra downloading/installing that I recall included some C++ stuff. PT desktop shortcut arbitrarily broke down. As many others reported already, game freezes on the "attempting to login" screen, you know, the one between "enter your credentials" and "here's your port" screens. Also unusually, no sound was ever present. Still freezing after deleting "profile" folder under "World_of_Warships_PT" which was recommended by a few. Still freezing after trying "Check for additional software", "Add Game to Firewall Exceptions", and "Check and Repair" buttons all in succession. Still freezing after forgetting and adding the PT account. ~60 minutes of fails, sad. You know, I wouldn't mind if you send me ~60 minutes worth of doubloons if you have extra lying around. - KitCat.
×