Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'setup'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 8 results

  1. TomBombardil

    Balancing CV Setup

    Hawker96 Sugeted a Slider possablatie for cv plane setups his suggestion would be to allow more choice, remove the preset "Flight Control" unlocks and replace them with a slider system like the one below: His sugestion included increasd credit cost for the "better" plane types And ship upgrades included better dmg/planes. My balnce on his great sugested idea is is: that you are not able to fully commit on your loadout to 1 type of planes (as some planes are more usefull/stronger than others) I would suggets that you can only commit around 3/5 of your loadout to one type of plane. This amount of maximum comitmnet can ofcourse be balanced and also influance by: Ship Upgrades Captains Abilaty Type of plane Tier (major;amount of total groups allowed), Low tiers (learning, still use preset loadouts) Nation (major;amount of groups allowed) For me it woud make me (for the Essex) switch between: 2/3 fighter 2/3 TB 0/1 DB (for those pesky DD's), and even more when they become more usefell (less buged, skill exertion) This adds (atleast for Beta) also a great way of testing what setups are favourd and viable. What are your (genral public) ideas on this?
  2. TomBombardil

    Skill in the CV class

    Exert = way of showing (He likes to exert his authority) Skill in the CV class Hopefully augmented post will have more impact than spamming OP/underpowered. First of all I would like to thank anyone who commented on my previous topic. Especial the argumneted one's Yang_Wenli (many great comments),Loran_Battle, Deckeru_Maiku, Vaderan, Takeda92, mtm78, Zaods, (name link = there comment). After a weekend overthinking and playing I will try to implement many cv topic (and comments) in this essay. 1. My conclusion remains that the competition between cv players, or better said ability to exert(=way of showing/using) skill difference is completely removed in the CV class. Above this, the implement of last (hidden) nerf makes, that your almost only able of hitting targets who are not paying attention. If they (or ships near them) pay the least amount of attention than the workload of hitting increases astronomically (as Azell said: “0.3.4 - im tired after every game”). As the “clicker class” topic elaborated, auto aim becomes better than manual aim, the only thing you need to micro is the approach path. Too bad the result of dragging the approach path is EXTREAMLY bugged (turn rate). Lastly the need of a Monster of a pc is also needed, as you need to immediately notice any change of turn rate of your target. Any lag or low fps will ruin any change of predicting movement. 2. As you might have notice with original post, I didn’t even bring up the balancing of the actual dmg dealing units, or there survivability compared to AA strength. Since balancing is really hard and I do agree that if you take the BB>CL>DD>BB circle. Where does the CV stand? I detain from these nerf(/buff ) spamming posts since my opinion (as a CV over other ship type player) will of course favours the buffing of the cv. (but I really do think (just as Ichase) that the CL’s AA ability is a insanely good, easy to use, ability. And a HARD HARD HARD counter to CV’s). And If the CV is so overpowered, why don’t you see more of them. Wont you want the best ship in the game. So isn’t the % of ships type a good indication of % of overpoweredness. (this is again an explanation of the amount of topics, fewer played will get fewer buff requests) I wanted to point out that these findings are mostly(only) based and apply for tier VII and higher, since low tier should be educating and not skill comparison. And also that I don’t have the slots for lower tiers ships (any type). Balancing By the extreme! As the CV is the worst ship type in game, only the view who actually still enjoy playing it, will probably be good and skilled cv will have a bigger impact than a non. Add up that, in any game, the impact of skill variability of a “map controller “ types is bigger. Inherit adding a cv to a skilled (and stacked) division will greatly improve there win change . IF the CV will ever be played professional than map dominance (vison) will become the only role of the CV Continuing the tier 10 cv is only give to proven CV players, no wonder it will dominate. It is a really bad reference for your standard deviation. Also It’s a tier X it should dominate , it’s always the highest tier. When you (normally) reach tier 10 you had a lot of games, inherent practise. And as the saying goes: Practice makes Perfect. Burst dmg setup. Many comments are about the high burst dmg potential of a cv. And complain that there is no counter (This last point I HIGHLY debate and is based on your experience). But is this surprising when the high dmg setups are the only viable option on the committed CV’s (no Lex/Ranger). Because the fighter setup is a Lose/lose situation. There will either be no CV to counter or the burst setups will always out dmg the defensive setup as a result of slipping true the cracks and death = instant return trip. As Aeronn said it: “ burst setup will be more useful as 2 enemy fighter setup cv’s, because you only take 1 slot”, There Useless. What you Fix with viable ship setups that include fighters: Max dmg potential, since you give up some dmg to be able to counter/defend the squads. Cv = cv counter , and not the 50/50 who finds the other CV2 first, 2 min gameplay. Limited strike possibility (fighter zoning TB) reduces the DPS potential even more Brings back skill in CV vs CV battles. Clickers, who already have absolutely no impact in my gameplay as a non cv, Will be punished even more. They have given (again hidden change) DiveBombers more burst dmg this makes committed fighter load outs a little bit more viable (As you notice more fighter setups in game). But this still doesn’t address the skill issue. Because: They’re really bugged The aiming and RNG are completely bonkers, the risk (missed aimed)/reward (hitting) of manual aiming (even for very skilled players) is almost only risk, only targeting a CV manually is worth it. Against a cv, the burst dmg setup will still be able to have bigger impact, since there bombers do also more dmg (and have more). Torp Bomber are and will remain the major source of dmg, CV players can actually predict how there launch will behave (compare to the DB), Hench an ability to exert skill. And targets can do more to avoid this dmg than just hoping RNG is in their favour, again an ability to exert skill). If you want a committed upgrade load out deferential, do it with nations. Jap: only burst & intermediate. USA: intermediate & fighter set. As so far the only major difference (apart from balance changes) I encounter in the Jap/usa is the amount of groups and micro potential that comes with it. I think the intermediate jap setup now is viable. As some fighters are better than none, without giving up to much of your dmg potential. In the land of the blind, ONE eye is king! No counter? About what can I do against incoming wave of planes ? Well what can you do against an incoming barrage, or a torp wall. Exactly the same thing, evade, with the added benefit that you can actually shoot down planes, especcialy when your a cl and in a goup. I haven’t been able to shoot down shell, or kill torps jet. This obvious huge drawbacks comes with the benefit of huge range. Forcing movement & focus One of the replies (Vaderan) brought up this point, as I had not even though of this, he made a valid point. Until I actually thought about it. Isn’t the ability to force movement inherent of ANY source of dmg (hence my initial not thinking this is a cv unicum). in the mind-set of ships. BB zone a Hugh area, as they have huge range. In defence, The detection of that incoming source of dmg is also huge, as they have a huge deteciton range. Cl, middle ground between DD and BB DD, highest burst, with ferry low detection of the source (the DD), and the dmg itself (torps). And those 2 don’t even have to line up. CV, high burst, can come from any direction. medium detection range of dmg source. (ship itself is even zoned out by a DD). Using this, the best ship who can disable you by forcing last minute movement, creating a higher possibility of “devastating” movement, is the DD (they have stranded me many times). And in the “zoning” department the CV loses by far. As games are won by either capping or killing (not stunning or disabling) . Zoning does impact games, as I doubt “force movement” does. Lastly IF this “forcing movement” is the cv only major ability. It would be really under power (as other ships can do the same). Above that you still need the stars to align, lone enemy, nearby cliff (freely manoeuvring is even harder to hit), 3th party that has profits from this. Torpedoes (again) In my original post I mention torp’s in particular arming range of torps. There are many complains about these. Implementing/changing the arming range will open up a way of implementing RNG: Having a standard deviation distribution, of arming torps (mean = given number) Skill exertion: knowing your Arming range (if no activation line is given) Balancing possibility’s : Give/hide activation line. Give low tier line (learning), high tier not (skill) Or captains abilaty Mean & standard deviation of arming range can depended on: Tier ,class, nation Dmg range Comments on Other Topics Topic: "Carriers: low risk/high" To atomskytten As many have said before me. Play the class before you post one sided (receiving) essays. Read Section “enemy movement & skill” of my original topic Torp over land masses: see point 1. Than you should also implement risk of hiding there, shallows/risk of flooding Implement different arm range instead of approaches range will address this a little. CV = hard BB counter The ship itself is already really bad (as it should be) Topic "hidden nerfs" PLZ warming give at least for the beta a Changelog instead of these uncompleted patch notes. Also see/support “Readable Changelog! (petition)”. (this post is over exaggerated since i had not found the “patch notes” log jet. Did they also change the speed of the TB torps? Topic: "CVs road to "clicker" class is almost finished" Best topic/post around. If war gaming truly wants a no skill game, there on their way. I thought top tier ships required skill to have a impact. else you would be slaughter, guess I’m wrong again (so far). Comment replies: To: General “OP comment’s Shout louder” comments. Thx for the warning. I hope these argument Essays will have at least a (havier) impact than all the short un-argument comments. As it shows that I actually took the time and effort for it.Plus these essay are not easy to write, especially since I’m not a native English speaker and I spell like sh*t, even when I know the word it still is a struggle how to spell it (To align (aleing), Exert(extor/exhert/..), mention (mangition)). It took me 5 hours to write and 1 hour layout & links. To: Caljostro See “Balancing By the extreme” part. (in summary the same as Yang_Wenli and Zaods posted) I have played with and against this player (as CV and as a other type). And he is good, but I don’t think include him in the best around. Strengthening above mentioned part. To mtm78 Thx for reading and commenting, Sarcasm in writing is really hard to read, so if you do make it clear. As many have said before me. Play the class your respective tiers! You repeatedly mention a good player, read that players own comment, and follow it (= see point above) Mention players is tier 10, inherent a good player , see”buffing by the extream” At Takeda92: Totally agree. Why is this one hit potential bad? As any ship type (USA Cl excluded) can do this with a well-aimed shot. Not even the need of target/whole team playing bad. THx again For Reading this, hope war gaming will at least comment on this because (as mention): These essay are not easy to write, especially since I’m not a native English speaker and I spell like sh*t, even when I know the word it still is a struggle how to spell it (To align (aleing, alhine,…), Exert(extor/exhert/etc), mention(mangition)). It took me 6 hours to write and 1 hour layout & links. (How many spam posts can you post in that time?) TomBombardil. PS, should I make “mini” post with the self-sustaining parts? eg: Torp’s, (as it seems like spamming is rewarded?)
  3. II_Nemesis_II

    Carrier setups

    Hey guys, I would like to ask which setups do you prefer on IJN carriers 6-8 tier. Balanced or pure assault? I have tried both and from my perspective the balanced one just does not cut it. Yes you are somewhat able to defend yourself and negate enemy carrier to some degree, but is it worth loosing one TB and DB squad? I think not. Then there are those battles without enemy carrier where you are just purely loosing in your power. The introduction of catapult fighters made these setups somewhat more relevant, but you need only one squadron for those, not two. If the setups would be like 1+3(TB)+2(DB) then I would be totally fine with them, but dunno if that wouldn't be considered "OP". Same goes for USN carriers. I think that their "improved" setups in the middle tiers (until Lexi) are really of a lackluster. The pure assault ones are 100% underwhelming compared to those of IJNs and they simply loose when thrown into a match with IJN, because of lower initial rush dmg potential where they get sink. And about the fighter setups I wont be even commenting on that. We all know they are completely worthless at max you can just negate some portion of enemy carrier, but when without it you are just dead weight to the team. So what I would like to see is that USN carriers get 1+1+2 setups instead of those pure assault. Right now in tier 5-7 you are just stuck with basic setups, because they are the most usable, thus you are in a disadvantage because you have one squadron less than with advanced setups and compared to IJN having 18 planes in air instead of their 24 or 20(tier 5).
  4. Rage_Unchained

    Fair play in ranked

    I just played a ranked match. It was a defeat, and I didn't really do much. However, we had 2 North Carolinas, one that sniped from the back, nearly 10km behind other teammates, and the other that pushed and actually played REALLY WELL. None of them are related to me, just to be clear, but... As the outcome is becoming very clear, and the NC that played REALLY WELL has died, the sniper elite NC now asks NC from enemy team to let him ram him for extra xp so he can save the star. This is what you can actually see in the screenshot. The NC from enemy team agrees, and in the end, the cheater NC skips over both Benson and the other North Carolina by almost 200xp and saves the star. The reason that happened is that the enemy team NC had almost 55000hp at the time of ramming, and this gave our sniper friend a huge XP boost. To add, the enemy team NC has already had a couple of shady games as I saw his clanmate in my team behave in very odd manner (using Atago), shooting at invisible battleships over islands that were not spotted and actually correcting his aim. I suspect they communicated via Teamspeak/Discord or whatever to help each other farm the xp. The Atago player was repeatedly attacked by teammates for not helping and being rude and unresponsive to minimap. Question here is: Are these kinds of actions allowed in ranked, and is there a different kind of report to the ones in game that do absolutely nothing. I was not affected by this cheating/unsportsmanlike action as I was 4th by XP anyway, but it really felt shitty, since both Benson and the other NC actually played well and helped others too.
  5. Hello Everyone!!! I am just starting to play with aircraft carriers. I have Hosho and very soon i am going to get Zuicho ... And i am starting to think about planes group setups... What is better setup? with fighters or without it? ... How do you use (especially in IJN) fighters? To protect our bomb/torp planes or to attack enemy? Please share with me (and others who want to know ) your experience about your tactic and all that stuff Thank you and have good luck and great fun in game!!!
  6. Hey guys I recently went over US carrier plane configurations and found that many of them are unbalanced/unviable, have obvious choices and obvious bad choices. I think that it needs to be rebalanced to make ALL configs viable and the choice harder and based on gameplay style rather than be based on what is clearly the best choice for every sane person. I wrote a ticket to WG about this, and wanted to know what everyone thinks about it, as i think it can make the game more interesting and not have totally useless configs that no sane person will use. (when i was writing the ticket and mentioned fighter/torp/bomber, i ment fighter squad, torpedo bomber squad, dive bomber squad) this is what i wrote in the ticket: Please let me know what is your opinion, by answering the poll, and/or writing comments here.
  7. ButterflyHunter2019

    Opinion on the best Amagi setup for Team battles

    Hi guys, what do you think are the best skills for Amagi for team battles? I took:1. Basics of Survivability2. Expert Marksman3. Vigilance4. Advanced Firing Training?. Now I have 4 skill points and need 80k exp for 5th one. I was thinking, that maybe beacuse of lack of AA I will take Manual Fire Control for AA - but no sure how much effective it is on Amagi, she has 8x2 127 mm with 82 dps and 6 km range. Manual Secondary Control seems interesting too, Amagi has 16 guns per side, seems more situational but maybe lifesaver in close range battles for extra damage and against suicidal dds. __ Also please include what upgrades you suggest with your choice, I currently have Main Battery Modification 1 (survivability of main guns) and Gun Fire Control System Mod. 1 (accuracy, is it -7% max dispersion?) Thanks for any advice and opinion
  8. Per carrier N planes may be up in the sky, for example N could be 4. You may pick any combination of fighters/dive bombers/torpedo bombers. Please vote, see poll. (^Super short/cleaned up version^)
×