Jump to content
5wi55_Ch3353

Haku 8km torp comedy.

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
2 posts
7,095 battles

Now first of all Haku needed a nerf after the fustercluck that was 0.8.0. I played mine and even tho I got a "horrible" (multiple 200k+ games, with many 70k with the first torp squad) score compared to some players who took advantage of the lol drop mechanics. With that being said, I thought the US CV's had it bad with aiming times on their torps, until I realized that they are meant to strike from a distance, gives your opponents all the time in the world to react but not all players do and sometimes islands or w/e help with the drops. But the Haku 8 km torp are an absoulute [edited]joke as is,  am I meant to start aiming them 5 minutes before the battles starts?? I agree with nerfing and balancing but how many bottles of vodka does that balancing team down before they go to work.

Well some people say the 6km's are usefull might as well try

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
58 posts
2,254 battles

40 knot speed for the torps compensate for the aiming time. You have to give a chance to Yamato that just beached itself to evade torps dropped at point blank range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
64 posts
24 minutes ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

Ask >> @Sir_Nelson << @MrConway @Crysantos he is responsible for many game balances and nerfs:

 

 

This just sums it up, according to Sir_Nelson testing the Giulio Cesare whilst all the CV rework stuff is going on is ok

because the Giulio Cesare IS NOT AN AA SHIP SO IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE CV REWORK....... really from a "senior game designer" ?

Obviously everything in the garden is rosey.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-5D-]
Beta Tester
169 posts
8,487 battles

Sir_Nelson's responses to many of the questions were simply baffling, some of them did not make sense at all.

 

His response to +1/-1 MM for CV's was just bizarre, it may have been a simple grasp of the English language. To be fair it was a brave thing to do to come on to the stream but in all fairness the answers were not great.

 

I know WG have "all the stats" but they never share them so there is little point in discussing anything with the developers because they will always hide behind that statement, it would be nice of them and a genuine demonstration of WG's commitement to rebuild trust between the players and themselves. I doubt this will happen though, "stats" are open to interpretation and the players could well derive completely different answers than WG do.

 

I think my biggest concern is that, even though MrConway said it was "in testing", they even considered messing with a premium ship (GC), there is no acknowledgement from WG that this is a mess of all their own making and that they were even touting the GC in the Xmas loot boxes, to actively push something, getting people to spend cash on "a chance" to obtain the ship, fully knowing they are looking to nerf it is wrong, simple as. Yet WG will not admit it, we all know what they have done but folks like MrConway ignoring it makes everything they do pretty moot, when trust is gone, it takes a long time to get it back, years some would say. All that good work undone in an instant.

 

Fair play to @Sir_Nelson for being on the stream, but his appearance has caused more concern within the playing community than it has allayed worries. I for one am now worried about the direction the devs are taking the game.

 

It seems that folks like me are no longer the target audience (am almost ready to raise my bat, if folks know what that means ;) ), I have really enjoyed this game but right now my favourite class (DD) is in port on R&R, the currrent CV meta is not fun for DD's, it is stressful, not my idea of fun. There are heavy AA cruisers in pretty much every match, making my trials of the CV game play painful, especially lower tiers, hence my consternation at the response to +1/-1 CV MM, it was a good question, poorly answered.

 

When the devs start to damage the elements you really enjoy what's the point, the past couple of weeks has seriously dented my confidence in the devs ability and to be frank @MrConway telling people to go away if they don't like it is a pretty poor response from a community manager, if anyone on my customer service team said that to my customers, I'd take them outside and re-educate them on how to speak to the people paying his wages. If that is indeed what you meant.

 

Sad state of affairs with this game now, rather depressing really.

 

TB.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Staff, Alpha Tester
2,587 posts
2,397 battles
16 hours ago, 5wi55_Ch3353 said:

Now first of all Haku needed a nerf after the fustercluck that was 0.8.0. I played mine and even tho I got a "horrible" (multiple 200k+ games, with many 70k with the first torp squad) score compared to some players who took advantage of the lol drop mechanics. With that being said, I thought the US CV's had it bad with aiming times on their torps, until I realized that they are meant to strike from a distance, gives your opponents all the time in the world to react but not all players do and sometimes islands or w/e help with the drops. But the Haku 8 km torp are an absoulute [edited]joke as is,  am I meant to start aiming them 5 minutes before the battles starts?? I agree with nerfing and balancing but how many bottles of vodka does that balancing team down before they go to work.

Well some people say the 6km's are usefull might as well try

 

From my experience I agree that we over-nerfed them, but that doesn't mean we cannot make further tweaks to make them more useable again. 

 

For now try the other set, I've had good results with them.

 

5 hours ago, T3ddyBear said:

Sir_Nelson's responses to many of the questions were simply baffling, some of them did not make sense at all.

 

His response to +1/-1 MM for CV's was just bizarre, it may have been a simple grasp of the English language. To be fair it was a brave thing to do to come on to the stream but in all fairness the answers were not great.

 

I know WG have "all the stats" but they never share them so there is little point in discussing anything with the developers because they will always hide behind that statement, it would be nice of them and a genuine demonstration of WG's commitement to rebuild trust between the players and themselves. I doubt this will happen though, "stats" are open to interpretation and the players could well derive completely different answers than WG do.

 

I think my biggest concern is that, even though MrConway said it was "in testing", they even considered messing with a premium ship (GC), there is no acknowledgement from WG that this is a mess of all their own making and that they were even touting the GC in the Xmas loot boxes, to actively push something, getting people to spend cash on "a chance" to obtain the ship, fully knowing they are looking to nerf it is wrong, simple as. Yet WG will not admit it, we all know what they have done but folks like MrConway ignoring it makes everything they do pretty moot, when trust is gone, it takes a long time to get it back, years some would say. All that good work undone in an instant.

  

Fair play to @Sir_Nelson for being on the stream, but his appearance has caused more concern within the playing community than it has allayed worries. I for one am now worried about the direction the devs are taking the game.

 

It seems that folks like me are no longer the target audience (am almost ready to raise my bat, if folks know what that means ;) ), I have really enjoyed this game but right now my favourite class (DD) is in port on R&R, the currrent CV meta is not fun for DD's, it is stressful, not my idea of fun. There are heavy AA cruisers in pretty much every match, making my trials of the CV game play painful, especially lower tiers, hence my consternation at the response to +1/-1 CV MM, it was a good question, poorly answered.

  

When the devs start to damage the elements you really enjoy what's the point, the past couple of weeks has seriously dented my confidence in the devs ability and to be frank @MrConway telling people to go away if they don't like it is a pretty poor response from a community manager, if anyone on my customer service team said that to my customers, I'd take them outside and re-educate them on how to speak to the people paying his wages. If that is indeed what you meant.

 

Sad state of affairs with this game now, rather depressing really.

 

TB.

 

I think there was indeed a bit of nuance lost in translation in some of the answers and we should give massive props to him for coming on the stream and doing such a heated Q&A in another language in the first place. Having spent quite some time with him during his visit discussing various aspects I am confident that he knows what he is doing.

 

If you feel like any specific questions need some clarification I am happy to try and provide it.

 

I am trying hard not to ignore any of the questions and spent a lot of time debating the GC issue in too many threads to count, the feedback that the GC change timing is poorly chosen has been heard loud-and-clear and passed on. 

 

Regarding your last point I am at a loss what you are referring to, please clarify when I said this :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SD-7]
Players
31 posts
4,169 battles

Personally I'm using the second the Tenrai-setup with 4 aircraft dropping at once (so the 8-click torpedoes) since I really dislike the other where only 2 aircraft attack simultaneously, but mainly my favor goes to the quadruple-attack flight due to the fact the passive squadron slows down more than the dual-attack flight's squadron does. (They leap much more forward after doing a strike than the quad-flight does, almost guarranteeing in at least half of your squadron being wiped before initiating a second attack. No Dai-nijikōgeki tai for me... :cap_rambo:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×