Jump to content

Oranges

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1558
  • Clan

    [PANZA]

1 Follower

About Oranges

  • Rank
    Lieutenant (junior grade)
  • Birthday 12/04/1991
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

115 profile views
  1. Oranges

    CB and WG Asia's huge mistake

    Hey Wargaming, remember the time you literally brought an Australian piece of history back from nothing and gave it to a museum, simply because of a love for the ships and tanks that you model in your games? By any means, that's not a business decision, even if you did tie it in by selling the Sentinel in-game. Same same here in trying to include as much of the community as possible in all your in-game events. Its not about turning a profit, because you're going to turn a profit anyway. But these guys and gals, they love this game every bit as much as you do. And they express that by spending hours of their lives here. Time. That's a precious gift - some would say that there is nothing more valuable that one could give. So when you return that by showing a little bit of appreciation, when you add RAN ships, or Pan-Asian ships, when you show up to PAX Australia, or the Tokyo Games Show, when you throw in-game events that all players have an equal opportunity to take part in, that does more for the community than any amount of marketing. Except right now, part of the community is going to be shut out of this massive awesome thing that's coming called Clan Battles. You know what's worse than not having something at all? Having something but not being able to use it. I acknowledge that there's legitimate arguments for why you've decided on the time block that you have; you're concerned about people trying to game the matchmaker, for starters. Here's an alternative: make it six hours long and only let any two clans battle each other once per 24 hours. If players switch clans, they can't take part in clan battles for 48 hours. Matchmaker problem solved, no? It just seems odd that Wargaming would, on the one hand, introduce a dedicated ANZ periphery server and try to entice ANZ players back to WoT, and then on the other hand decide to exclude them from the next big thing in WoWS. Keep going down this track and within a couple of years it'll be WoWS that's setting up a dedicated ANZ periphery trying to entice ANZ players back.
  2. Hydro reveals in smoke...from 4km away. By the time you get to within 4km, you've been torped. Radar reveals in smoke...for 25 seconds. Three salvos doesn't kill a destroyer from 9km away, if you even hit it at all. I've literally just a had where a Farragut took five salvos (each of which connected) from a Shchors from 4km away and still made it out alive, so I don't know where this "two salvos kills a destroyer" comes from. As you just said in your next paragraph, 10/10 hits from a cruiser won't kill a destroyer, and how often does a cruiser manage to land 5/10 shots on a moving destroyer from 10km away? "Here is one picture where RNG favoured me with a greater than average number of hits on a destroyer". "Here is a situation which arises every game whereby invisible destroyers drop torps with impunity from stealth." "Haha I had one picture therefore your entire argument is incorrect." Fantastic. Once again, hydro and radar counter SMOKE. They do not counter STEALTH.
  3. Yes, except nobody plays CVs. Anecdotally, from my gaming tonight, between tier 5-9, fewer than 10% of games had CVs. Every game had destroyers. How do we counter destroyers if what's supposed to counter them (cruisers) doesn't, and the other counter (aircraft carriers) are almost never seen? That's why I argue that CVs should be brought back into the meta more.
  4. All the successful competitive games (CS, Dota, LoL, even WoT to some degree) have almost entirely no RNG. They're almost purely about player skill, and teamwork and coordination. RNG detracts from allowing good players to beat bad players because it means that the gap between the two is reduced. As you say, it allows a casual player to beat a hardcore one...which makes sense, if you want to appeal to casual gamers. If you want to allow people to do well, then you remove RNG. The current meta relies on game mechanics which punish aggressive players, arbitrarily elevate certain ship-types over others, and remove all chance of victory from other ship classes in fairly common situations. There is an overreliance on teamwork to counter single players, which means those players can then have a disproportionate impact on the rest of the game if those counters are absent or uncoordinated. This may not always be reflected on the scoreboard, but a DD torp spread which doesn't land any hits but pushes a battleship out of position so that it gets destroyed is equally as impactful as the torp spread which kills the battleship.
  5. So in those situations, BB/CA drivers should just give up, sit still and afk, and let the enemy DD have an easy torp to win? Great, so much fun, whoo, why even bother playing at that point just suicide so you can get into the next game quicker. Regardless of specific scenario or not, it boils down to basic game mechanics. Torp destroyer beats battleship. Torp destroyer beats cruiser, which is supposed to counter destroyers. Battleships have no counters for destroyers (other than the risky 'rely on your teammates'). To me, that's poor game mechanics, and it means that battleships will find themselves in hopeless situations where the game mechanics simply prevent them from being able to do anything at all. Image a situation where the enemy ship is perfectly 90 degrees to you. Always, because they're reversing and can turn to match your forwards/backwards movement. All you can see is the front half of their ship. Say that the enemy ship is exactly 10km away from you. Aiming at their superstructure means you're aiming 10.1km away. By the time the shells have travelled that far, the enemy ship has already moved to 10.3km away. Your shells miss entirely. You cannot aim behind where the enemy ship is because aiming at the water above their superstructure means that you're now aiming 12km away, which is much farther than the 10.3km they would be at. Yes/no or do I actually need to take a screenshot?
  6. Different elevation affects vertical dispersion, not horizontal. Also, they're elevated exactly the same in the game because they're both in the same turret aimed at the same target. Agree mutual interference is a factor but that would at least result in somewhat consistent results. In this game, shells simply fly anywhere they want within whatever dispersion the game has set because "fun", apparently.
  7. Hydroacoustic search and radar are counters to smoke, they are not counters to stealth. Hydroacoustic search in particular only has a range of 4km or so, which doesn't penetrate stealth at all. The other thing is that the limited time of hydro and radar (25-35 seconds) only allow most cruisers to get off 3-4 shots. Against a moving destroyer 8-9km away, that isn't enough to kill them. And after cruisers run out of charges, destroyers will still have stealth to slip into. Cruisers do not get destroyed merely for showing their broadside for a few seconds, destroyers do not die from a single salvo, stop exaggerating. What you're saying is that destroyers should have stealth because that's the only way to kill cruisers, which counter destroyers. Cool, so what do battleships get that let them counter destroyers? Nothing. Not a damn thing.
  8. None of this even explains why guns from the SAME TURRET will fire in completely different directions. What?! How did this make it into the game? How is this even physically possible? Also, if everything is perfectly okay with the current meta, then obviously nothing needs to be changed, according to the above commenters. The fact that nobody plays aircraft carriers, that's fine. The fact that every game is decided by cruisers and destroyers alone, that's fine. The fact that whichever team hides behind islands/smoke/stealth more wins, that's fine.
  9. To address a couple of points: If a ship is pointed directly at you, smoke direction doesn't tell you if they're moving forwards or backwards because it points straight up. The other thing is that if its pointed directly at you and sailing backwards, you can't aim behind the ship because the ship itself blocks your shot (i.e. you aim directly at where the ship was, but by the time your shells get there its moved back). Aiming above the ship means your shots land too far back. You can't "adjust" your shot at all, in this case. And its very, very common. "Stealth is working fine" - one destroyer with more torp range than detection range can destroy any number of battleships and cruisers by itself without ever being spotted, without ever drawing any fire. Apparently, according to everyone in this thread, that's perfectly fine. How about making it so that ship silhouettes show up if beyond detection range but this way you still have a shot of blind firing at them? Or how about making cruisers able to spot destroyers from further away (i.e. different detection ranges depending on the other class of ship), and battleships able to detect cruisers from further away? Or, nope, we could stick with the current meta where invisible DDs can rain down infinite torpedoes on cruisers and battleships. WG has already said that some ships being able to fire their guns without being spotted ever is an incorrect mechanic that needs to be fixed. Why doesn't this apply to torpedoes? The fact is that any class of ship in this game should have a reasonable chance of destroying any other class, 1v1. Or are you saying that it's supposed to be fun when factors outside of my control (e.g. teammates, game mechanics) mean that I can be destroyed by unseen enemies without ever being able to shoot back at them or do anything to prevent them from torping me to death? Even at 12-15km, dispersion in battleships (and some cruisers) still sucks. Even if you put yourself in a perfect position, even if your timing is perfect, even if your aim is perfect, the excessive RNG when shooting means that you can still miss completely. I've had shots straddle on both sides of the target (near and far, not left and right), broadside, from under 10km. When you only fire two shots per minute, that's unnecessarily punishing. Yes, I know BBs can stealth fire from behind islands too. Is this game turning into World of Tanks, where every hides behind an obstacle and only peeks out to shoot at someone exposed on the enemy team? "The more accurate you place your shots the more chance RNG has to smile upon you" - that's literally not how RNG works. I can aim perfectly at an enemy ship but huge vertical spread can end up with only one shell falling at the correct distance, with all the other shots falling up to 100m away from where the ship is. When the ship is only 20m or so wide, that's a miss by a factor of five. Yay. So accurate. Much damage. Wow.
  10. There are three major problems with the current meta of the game, by which I mean the optimal, preferred or majority path to victory in battles. They are, as the title suggests, speed, spread, and stealth. Speed - in many situations, its impossible to tell if a ship is moving forwards or backwards, or how fast they're moving. This is particularly prevalent in the absence of any landmarks to refer ship movement to. Additionally, in some situations it can be difficult or impossible to correctly aim at a ship that is moving in a particular way, for example trying to hit a ship that is pointed directly at you and moving backwards. Finally, cruisers and destroyers that vary their speed can be almost impossible for battleships to hit, due to rapid ship acceleration and slow shell travel time. The rewards for players who sail ships that can utilise speed to their advantage, and the lack of any balance against this mechanism, means that these ships have an unassailable advantage over ships which cannot. The obvious counter to many aspects of speed would be aircraft carriers, but the current meta is such that very few players opt to play aircraft carriers at all. As such, as examples, you get negative gameplay such as cruisers sitting idle behind islands spamming HE without fear of retribution, and US battleships slowly sailing backwards in the face of the enemy whilst tanking almost all incoming fire. Spread - there is no reward for aiming accuracy because shell spread is such that whether you even hit the enemy ship or not is overly reliant on RNG. There can be huge variance in vertical and horizontal dispersion of shells, and there's even massive difference in shell aim between barrels on the same turret pointed in the same direction from the same position! Aiming in this game needs to be high-risk high-reward. Reduce shell dispersion so that accurate aim is rewarded but inaccurate aim is punished. Target ship orientation should weight the game's calculation of your horizontal and vertical shell dispersion (i.e. if target ship is broadside relative to you, you should have less vertical dispersion and more horizontal dispersion. If target ship is perpendicular to you, you should have more vertical dispersion and less horizontal dispersion). Stealth - the ability for ships to hide behind islands, in smoke, or simply being undetectable due to concealment, make destroyers and cruisers overly powerful in the current meta, because the only effective counter to stealth is aircraft carriers...which few players use. Even absent aircraft carriers, the ability for a destroyer to sail with impunity, dropping infinite torpedoes, at distant battleships, is something that needs to be addressed. The fact of the matter is that a single destroyer, as long as their torpedo range is greater than their detection range, could destroy any number of battleships without ever being spotted or shot in return. Putting aside how impossible this would be in reality, from a gameplay perspective the fact that any class has such an unassailable advantage is simply deplorable. The easiest solution to these issues is to see the widespread reintroduction of aircraft carriers to regular gameplay. The fact that destroyers aren't countered by cruisers needs to be addressed, the fact that stealthed cruisers counter battleships needs to be addressed, and the overreliance on a single class (aircraft carriers) to address a multitude of game mechanics needs to be addressed, but in the short-term more aircraft carriers would be a good start.
  11. The current meta for cruisers appears to be "hide behind island and spam HE". For BB drivers, this means that any attempt to push is unsupported by their own cruisers and punished by enemy cruisers who are invulnerable to return fire. I suggest that cruisers, destroyers and battleships have a mandatory average speed requirement per game in order to be eligible to receive full battle rewards (credits and exp): - average speed of ship greater than 70% of ship top speed = 100% reward - average speed of ship 50-70% of ship top speed = 75% reward - average speed of ship 30-50% of ship top speed = 66% reward - average speed of ship less than 30% of ship top speed = 50% reward This will help stop the current cruiser meta, serve as an additional push to prevent afk players (particularly players who might afk for the first 5 mins of a battle and then participate), and encourage players to actually move their ships around and be mobile...as ships are supposed to do, and historically did do.
  12. Oranges

    PAX Australia 2016

    Already bought my three day pass for PAX Aus 2016 fourth year of PAX, fourth year of attending all three days.
  13. Oranges

    why do we have to repair undamaged ships?

    You didn't quote that post originally. Furthermore, in that post he asks the same question as OP does as to why they're losing credits for things that they don't understand i.e. paying for repairs even though they didn't take any damage. Yes, he ends his post by mentioning the high repair cost of a Yamato, but the rest of the post is a reiteration of what OP is asking. So I'm asking you straight out, R3negade, why is it that apparently players need to pay for repairs on Tier X ships when they finish the battle with 100% HP?
  14. I'm going to take a different approach to what's been said so far, so bear with me. The way the game aims to be balanced is through rock-paper-scissors, i.e. destroyers beat battleships beat cruisers beat destroyers, with aircraft carriers sitting somewhere in the middle of that triangle, able to counter all, but also vulnerable to all. Each class is also able to counter itself, to a lesser degree. The problem is that, while destroyers counter battleships very effectively, and battleships counter cruisers very effectively, it takes two classes (cruisers + aircraft carriers) to effectively counter destroyers. If a single cruiser is up against a single destroyer, a competent destroyer captain will win 100% of the time, simply because they can endlessly sail circles around the cruiser dropping torpedoes from outside detection range. Concealment places every other class other than aircraft carriers at an inherent disadvantage when they come up against a destroyer, simply because there's no counter to concealment (other than controllable planes). What we need to do is, we need to redefine how different ship classes interact with one another. Cruisers don't counter destroyers, aircraft carriers do. Cruisers counter everything, and are countered by everything. If we had a 1:2 CV : DD ratio in our games, DDs would still perform well but they wouldn't overperform. The priority for CVs is no longer to attack enemy battleships and carriers, its to neuter enemy DDs.
  15. Oranges

    why do we have to repair undamaged ships?

    Well then why talk about the economy in top tier when fuzzjunky's post doesn't mention that at all? Isn't that directed at the OP, or the thread topic? If not, why post it?
×