Jump to content

Retia

Super Tester
  • Content Сount

    2,500
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1535
  • Clan

    [LEAK]

About Retia

  • Rank
    Vice Admiral
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Germany
  • Drag Interests
    Anime, History (WW2 mostly), Books, Jogging, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Videogames

Recent Profile Visitors

1,463 profile views
  1. Munies, shackles, dollars, €€€. Take Girls und Panzer for example, an anime about cute girls driving cute tanks. The studio didn't have much of a budget for the initial run of the anime's first season and it shows. After the first half of episodes the writing quality (The animation and drawing quality always were so-so) drops dramatically. Heck, the final arc of the show pretty much stops being a sports anime entirely in trade for a Laurel and Hardy routine. Then you get the sequel works, the OVAs and movie. Writing, animation and drawing quality was improved by a lot. However that only happened due to how much Girls und Panzer blew up both in and outside of Japan. Btw, KanColle already got a sequel movie and a second season was announced, it just got awefully quiet after a while so nobody knows whether a second season will actually come or not. Financially this isn't an issue since DMM is quite the large company... they do lack common sense and logic though.
  2. Retia

    Pan Asia Flag poll

    I'm a simple guy, I woke up a couple of months ago and figured: "All this nationalistic nonsense doesn't go with my ideology of hating all humans equally." Hence why every nation's ship I own flies these colours:
  3. Aircraft carriers are still in a horrible position within the game. Almost all mechanics, including core ones, either feel very basic and unrefined or completely out of place. To put it shortly, aircraft carriers need a complete rework, not just some fancy new left-click availability and minor quality of life changes, but a complete overhaul. In addition to this carrier gameplay, if it is to stay, has to also be enriched by additional layers of game mechanics that introduce more optionality and a much deeper gameplay than currently available. Goals: Add more layers of gameplay depth through introduction of additional mechanics Change aircraft carriers (CV) from a "alpha strike" type of vessel to a support/damaging type Re-balance CV to be more enjoyable for the carrier players and those playing with/against them There will be several changes, additions and adjustments necessary to achieve these goals. Due to the severity of these I highly advise to follow suit and bring about the following short term changes: 1. Remove 2v2 CV matches These are currently throwing the balance of teams completely out of order due to the inherently random chances of CV loadouts. To take this into a simple example: 2v2 CV match All CVs are of the Independence class Team 1: Aerial Superiority (2/0/1) & Strike (0/1/2) Team 2: 2x Strike (0/1/2) Team 1 has automatically won unless the Aerial Superiority player is a completely new player without an ounce of skill. 2. Change the CV Loadouts For the sake of balance all CV loadouts currently available should be mirrored until further notice. Right now there's a huge imbalance between carriers of different nations of the same tier, this problem can't be easily solved without achieving the previously mentioned goals, hence it's irresponsable to "let things be as they are" until a proper re-work can take place. These two changes should suffice to flatten the ground work until the re-work can be released to the live server. I will now go into the re-work itself. One of the major issues with CV gameplay in World of Warships is the lack of in-depth game mechanics. The addition of manual drops and strafing runs since alpha were nice, however the strafing ability in particular failed to break apart the simpleness of the overall gameplay depth. Without a greater number of assets and options to deploy both tactical and strategical actions the CV gameplay quickly becomes stale, easy to abuse and predictable. In order to change this several new mechanics have to be introduced. Chief among them the ability to change an aircraft squadron's altitude. The Altitude System This system will include 3-4 different altitudes for the player to chose from, the selected aircrafts will then move to the chosen altitude. Every altitude will have both benefits and disadvantages of varying types. Here are a few examples to give a proper understanding of what this mechanic's going to look like. The higher altitude an aircraft flies at the lower the AA damage it takes Fighters engaging an enemy below them will receive an initial damage boost Dive bombers are capable of starting their attack run from the 2nd highest altitude Torpedo bombers can only begin their attack run from the lowest altitude At the highest altitude aircrafts and ships can't spot/engage each other The basic seperation of altitudes would be: Sea level During take off/landing, torpedo attack runs and also selectable as the lowest flight altitude. Increased intensity of anti-air fire (Read Anti-Air rework). Regular Flight level This would be the standart flight level aircrafts will rise to after launch. Anti-air fire intensity is normal. High Altitude level This altitude will take a bit more time to reach for aircrafts and is still below the clouds and thus visible for ships. Dive bombers can still start their attack run from this altitude. Anti-air fire intensity is low. Above The Clouds level The highest possible altitude which takes a considerable amount of time to reach. No bomber can immediately begin it's attack run from here, they have to descent to their according altitude beforehand. Aircrafts and ships can't spot or engage each other. The major benefits of taking a higher altitude are immediately visible, however the disadvantages show within the fine print. Aircrafts will require time both to gain altitude and to fly down to a lower altitude, this in particular goes for torpedo bombers that can't maneuver as well due to their heavy payload and aircraft construction limitations. Therefore it may have value to only send bombers up to a certain altitude while fighters should go up as far as possible. At the same time it might be better to dip in and out of the highest altitude in case that the enemy fighters go in fast and shoot down bombers before the other player can even react. This mechanic also improves the way mindgames can be played by utilising both the altitude and the vision systems within the game. On the other hand this system can be used to great effect to balance out aircrafts of different nations/ships by giving these different rates at which they gain altitude. Of course this system will have to undergo long term testing before a final release, however it's something that's sorely lacking to the current gameplay. Reclassification At the moment CVs have a flavour on them that is best described as "Picking a target and sinking it". Right now that's the main asset CVs bring to the table, a massive amount of burst damage that it more than enough to sink most ships. Spotting, bomber interception and general presence on the battlefield are all secondary tasks at the moment. With the new re-work this'll change to more of a supportive damage role. There are several ways of making this change ranging from simply reducing the damage potential of bombs and torpedoes to switching most of the potential damage from the initial hit damage to the over time effects fire and flooding. Outside of this it's also quite possible that the altitude system itself will take care of the CVs' damage potential due to the time required to safely reach a target. Personally I'd favour a re-focus on both fire and flooding damage instead of raw damage potential. This change would likely require changes in the way these damage types are designed (Flooding being very strong at the moment) and the way certain ways of surviving these damage over time effects work out. For example the overall cooldown on the Damage Control Party consumable might have to be reduced. Overall this part of the re-work will also require large amounts of testing due to it's effects on other parts of the game. Loadouts After the removal of different loadouts for different nations it's now time to take a new look on how loadouts of differing numbers can work out. The major issue here is that the balance between the utility of having more squadrons, hence more options, and the raw power of having less squadrons is immensely difficult to achieve properly. Most RTS games follow a very basic routine. For example: Nation A and B both have a basic "Rifleman" infantry unit. Nation A's Rifleman has 2 hitpoints and 1 attack power Nation B's Rifleman has 1 hitpoint and 1 attack power Nation A's Rifleman is obviously stronger. Now lets introduce more variables to the system: Nation A's Rifleman costs 100 ressources Nation B's Rifleman costs 50 ressources Now the playing feel looks more even, however now we add even more variables. Unit speed Construction speed Unit vision range Unit firing range Special abilities/buffs Unit firing speed Etc. And thus things quickly spiral out of control as they currently are in World of Warships due to the lack of proper balance between the many variables in play. This is also the main reason why I advised a short term change to mirror loadouts on all currently available CVs. In order to rework this class there has to be a ground level of balance from where to move onward from and this basic mirror match layout is perfect to achieve any future balance changes without returning to previous mistakes. One of the major mistakes I see in the way CVs were developed in WoWS was the immediate jump to having two very different national loadouts instead of slowly moving one change forward to see how it interacts with other existing mechanics. Anti-Air Rework Another, perhaps even more "hot topic" than the previous ones, issue is the strength of anti-air armaments currently available in-game. Anti-air guns should be weakened again in combination with the rework of CVs towards a more supportive role. Instead of the current actual threat to aircrafts the guns should have a debuff style of influence with damage dealt being a minor role. For example ships with good anti-air armament should influence the way bombers engage them. One particular idea would be that bombers under intense anti-air fire would lock up in their attack run much earlier than bombers under little to no fire. This would also put more emphasise on taking out anti-air armaments without having the loss of planes in mind but instead the potential loss of damage dealt. Another idea would be to give bombers under heavy anti-air fire a few additional seconds before the drop due to evasive maneuvering, this could be varied between torpedo bombers which are more vulnerable to anti-air fire and dive bombers which can deal with heavy anti-air fire much better due to the speed and angle of their approach. Regardless of whatever solution is tested and released in the final version a change from shooting down planes (Which should still be possible regardless just to a much smaller extend) to a more passive benefit should take place. Defensive AA Fire Consumable Rework Right now this consumable is one of two rather questionable consumable decisions made by the devs. The nature of this consumable in itself is rather plain. To describe a well designed (Not to say it being perfect) consumable I'd point to both Smoke Generator and Hydroacoustic Search consumables. Both of these follow a simple but nicely constructed Risk&Reward system. Smoke prevents the ship(s) inside it to be spotted by the enemy, however this goes both ways and can quickly become the smoked ship's demise. Meanwhile the Hydroacoustic Search consumable has another very basic risk attached to it, that is it's short range making whatever ship wants to bring the consumable to bear also having to expose itself to several potential threats. The Defensive AA Fire consumable does not suffer from any risks outside of it's cooldown, which in the premium version isn't that long either. Keeping the previously mentioned change in the way anti-air armaments work in general in mind the changes to this consumable should go hand in hand with the above mentioned. The changes to be made here are two. 1.) Remove the damage boost 2.) After the consumable runs out the ship's anti-air armament will lose it's debuff effects on enemy aircrafts for X amount of time The increase in spread on attacking bombers should stay the way it is now, although there's an argument to be made that the reduction and/or change in damage potential may have to see a decrease in the effect this consumable has on bombers. Other Changes - Hangar sizes These have to be adjusted to the gameplay and playability rather than historical correctness and realism. At the moment low tier CVs losing just a few aircrafts are immediately put at a huge disadvantage while higher tier CVs are encouraged to sacrifice entire squadrons to take out key targets with little to no disadvantages outside of a few additional seconds before a lost squadron can be deployed again. - Potential removal of the strafing ability As mentioned before this gameplay mechanic has failed to increase the gameplay depth and has in several cases caused more issues than it solved. Either a rework, for example in accordance with the new altitude systme, or a complete removal may be necessary. However I'd highly suggest to put this under intense testing. - Loadout selection before the battle starts This is the number one feature to introduce before re-enabling 2v2 CV battles. The general idea is to let CVs select their loadout on the loading screen or in-battle before the start timer has run out and the battle has started. This way CVs can react properly to certain situations (+2 tier matchmaking, team CV loadout, opposing CV types) and a lot of the previous randomness which often could decide a battle before it started is taken away. - Damage/Concealment changes Right now it's often encouraged for CVs to stay far behind the frontline at the border of the map. In order to change this passive playstyle for the ship itself the survivability has the to be increased, perhaps even beyond the historical/realistic statistics. The idea is to encourage CV players to move with their teammates instead of far behind them without making the ships too tanky. One potential way of doing this would be an improved Damage Control Party as well as the addition of a different type of Repair Party which slowly repairs the ship over time as a passive ability rather than a consumable. This for the most part concludes my thoughts on how a proper aircraft carrier re-work should be shaped. There are still many parts and ideas missing that I either didn't mention, forgot to mention and/or didn't even think about. I wrote this text from the point of view of a player who has been playing World of Tanks since it's beta and who has been an alpha tester for both World of Warplanes and World of Warships aswell as War Thunder in it's aviation and ground forces parts. Gaming wise I take interest in all sorts of genres including but not only: Strategy, roleplaying, shooter, platformer games and many others. In terms of World of Warships I play all four different classes with my favourites being battleships, destroyers and carriers. For the sake of completion here's my stats for SEA, NA and EU: SEA: https://asia.wows-numbers.com/player/2001214203,Retia/ NA: https://na.wows-numbers.com/player/1002666888,Peo01/ EU: https://wows-numbers.com/player/500361620,Peo01/ Lastly allow me to state that all of the above mentioned is subject to change should Wargaming ever decide to go into this direction with it's nebulous "CV rework". When I wrote that things require large scale testing I wasn't just "throwing it out there", these changes and additions will require months of in-depth focus testing. With best regards and see ya on the oceans, Retia
  4. Not playing a tier V DD in an operation... what are you even doing with your life?
  5. None, there's a bunch of great games coming out or a bunch of great games that have been coming out lately. As someone who's been playing Wargaming titles since WoT's early days I can only give you this suggestion: Wait with buying premium content until the game's in a good state of development, that's when you'll have the most fun and get the most value for your money. Unless you want to buy a Saipan and don't mind abusing broken game mechanics that belong to a game in it's alpha state and not release, then fire away and have fun...
  6. Retia

    New Forum Layout

    Greetings, I just wanted to share my feedback on the new forum layout that was changed on the 6th. Post Layout Why are there gigantic spaces between each line without the option to adjust the line breaks? The old size was perfect to emphasize a paragraph while using one empty line to seperate paragraphs within a text, now the user either has to use a double space to further emphasize on seperate paragraphs or use the horizontal line which really only works for seperating sub topics in a single post since they make a clean break between text. I do appreciate that the forum finally converts video and image links automatically, although it doesn't show that the link is working unless the post is made or the user goes into the advanced editor and preview it. General Overview Holy potatoes is it aweful. The new main page with it's seperated tabs is way too unintuitive and overloaded with terms which aren't easy to figure out. Why do I have to click on activities, click on unread content and then also, because life isn't complicated enough already get machine gunned by another dozen tabs with several options half of which just leave gigantic quesiton marks over my head. Most of the options aren't even useful, search for tag? Why would I search for a tag when, just like with this thread, the tags are whatever the individual user writes. Good times of searching for the "Wakka wakka" tag indeed... Without preset options this tag search serves no purpose other than confusing people when they search for a topic, can't find it because the last five hundred times it was posted the tag was slightly different and then get trolled for re-posting stuff that has been discussed a thousand times already. Not to mention that there's no reason for tag searching when there's sub forums ins-... oh wait... If you'd like to see an example of how a forum with a proper layout looks, here you have it: Link Overall Look I feel like I'm in a medical facility, everything's so clean and sterile. I guess it's supposed to give the forum a "modern" "new" look, well, it failed and just looks boring and plain instead. Not like the old layout was much better, but making things worse sure didn't help. One Final Advice Forums are best when they're easy to use, i.e. intuitive. When you need several lines of text to explain your new and improved features then it's not helping anybody. Tl:dr, back to the drawing board, back to the old layout and into the trash bin with this one. MfG, Retia Edit: A Few More Things Multi-quote is now a + button instead of... you know... "Multiquote" so any new user has to hover the mouse above it to see what that icon means. I can understand this change though, there's now all this beautiful empty space where once before the "Multiquote" button was distracting me from the emptiness that surrounds all of us, a truly beautiful artistic change. We have a calendar now, yay. A completely useless because empty calendar without anything posted in it. Also for some reason the initial page is the current day instead of the monthly calendar, because logic dictates that one goes into detail first and then switches to the general overview instead of... you know... having the current date highlighted and starting with the monthly overview like any normal human being? Check this out. 1. Hover your mouse above your pc's clock 2. Left click Tadaaah! It's a calendar, and it starts with an overview of the entire month unless modified, huzzah \o/ You know where a calendar would be useful? Posted as a thread and stickied in a subforum for "General Purpose Official Threads" so that people that want this kind of information while scavanging the forums can easily access it. Edit²: Friends are now called followers because "We're all Sociel Media now." Posts just advance endlessly while typing instead of making you scroll after a while. At first I though this was a good change, then I realised that I have to scroll anyway, especially when I want to use toolbox options like the horizontal lines... So not only do I still have to scroll through the wall of text now I have to do so more often than before when writing a wall of text. Great changes so far.
  7. Retia

    PVE Gamemode needs alot of work

    Repair ships are fine, you're not supposed to use them anyway, hence why they're way too far behind. They're an emergency assets for when your team screws up. Tier VI ships can easily handle any of the threats the mode throws at them when the players know how to utilise their ships, if they don't, they lose. >Damage Control Party restock Mediocre rewards for mediocre performance is okay for me. It's difficult enough for players to struggle to reach 4+ stars and it's easy enough to finish it regardless. Yes, it does. Hint: Romeo spawns either east or south, depending on how the enemy waves spawn. A good CV is a huge performance boost for the entire team. Either Ryuujou or Indy work for this. As for camping, be sure to not stay too far behind, since you need to intercept enemies before they reach the circle. Ten would be too easy, I guess a "Baby's first scenario" mode with worse rewards than regular Coop could be added though for players that just want to relax and press random buttons on their keyboard.
  8. Same reason people can bring BBs and DDs into a mission that's easier to win with a CA/CV lineup? WG loves the random aspect of it's games, especially when it comes to team compositions. The only counter is to grab some friends and make a division, also thank the fruitbasket for WG being smart enough to enable 7 player divisions for the scenarios.
  9. Retia

    Question about IJN dd line

    Like those above me wrote it was Mutsuki, the ultimate test for a JP DD player. The test mostly revolved about understanding that JP DDs have quite potent guns.
  10. Retia

    AniManga Chat :E

    I'm currently at the largest anime con in Germany, have some pics. http://m.imgur.com/a/cDfZQ
  11. Retia

    My average xp goes up a few points

    I will answer your question like I answer all questions. 42
  12. Retia

    Will i ever get a pilot ace on CV ?

    Inb4 premium soviet carrier with "Litvyak's 586th Squadron" using good old ufo La-5s.
  13. Retia

    Teaching new CVs...

    1.) Hosho and Langley are largely uneffected by the removal of manual drops/strafing since the AA they regularly face is weak and the players either inexperienced or the ships unable to maintain a high enough speed to avoid all torpedoes. 2.) Zuiho and Bogue suffer from the combination in lack of burst damage, slow planes and often getting the mid tier sized maps. The former has a major issue since her impact on the match only starts showing mid to late game by which time the decisive phase has usually ended and whether a game results in a win or loss is entirely up to the other players. Bogue suffers from various issues with her loadouts. For no reason WG switched to a 1/1/0 loadout for her while at the same time the additional dive bomber squadron wouldn't even impact her performance much since it has a worse drop circle than Langley. The only viable picks are the AS loadout or Strike loadout, with the two obvious issues. These are obvious signs that Wargaming is still in the middle of figuring out the proper way of reworking CVs and hasn't decided on a development path yet. It's the same way they handled SPGs in WoT and there isn't really much us players can do anymore at this point. Afterall people have been making suggestions for the carrier gameplay since alpha... with little to no changes since then. I fully expect to not see any proper CV rework until 2018 and even then I doubt that it'll be a workable solution... Well, I guess time will tell.
×