Jump to content

Moggytwo

Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

    1,310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    11024
  • Clan

    [AUSNZ]

Community Reputation

1,007 Illustrious

2 Followers

About Moggytwo

  • Rank
    Captain
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,953 profile views
  1. I don't get this thread. They significantly changed the practices used during dockyard events following the Puerto Rico debacle. Odin and Anchorage have been perfectly decent events. Why would anyone think they would suddenly go back to the awful practices of last christmas when they have clearly changed the way they do these events based on the comprehensive and entirely justified complaints about the PR event. The primary issue with the PR event was the monetisation practices that WG used. They used to have quite reasonable monetisation practices, where you paid money to get something quite clear, and it was all very straight forward. With the PR event (and in some of the events before that) they started to use behavioural psychology techniques to attempt to get people to spend money when they otherwise may not have. The PR event took this to the next level - players were lulled by the apparent ease of the grind that was communicated by CC's and not corrected by WG, and also from the minimising language used in the PR event web page (it's entirely possible to get PR for free, simply complete the directives), into starting a grind that many had little to no chance of completing even when using boosters to (in a player's mind) make it relatively easy. When the end of the grind is in sight and it suddenly became clear to players that despite all the money and time they have put into PR, they would not actually receive the ship, then they had to spend more money to complete it, or face the complete loss of all the time and money they had already put in. This was an unacceptable position in which to put the players of their game! These practices were not used during the Odin and Anchorage dockyard events. It was quite clear in advance what was required, and what the ship would cost with whatever method you chose to use to acquire it. They changed the way they did things quite obviously based on player feedback (or a thoroughly justified massive player outcry really). I see no reason why the Hizen event will be any different.
  2. Well it's Halloween, they've done something for this every single year, and it is their main large scale test bed for new stuff in the game, there's no way they would drop that. Then we have the christmas event, and this has been a major event in the game every year since inception as well. I understand some players think there are lots of events in the game, but these two are absolute staples of World of Warships. I personally don't mind having lots of events, and WG consider it important to keep the game feeling active. What does it matter if there are lots of events, you don't have to do them all - I had less than zero interest in the Anchorage event for example, so I didn't participate. Although I've ranked out a few times in the normal ranked seasons, most seasons I just play a few games up to rank 10 or 11, and leave it there. The Odin event I was interested in, so I did that. Having so many events enables you to play the game like this. Imagine if they only did one event every few months, for plenty of people there would be zero interest in anything new in the game for months at a time. If they had done PR last christmas, and then Anchorage mid year, and then Hizen this christmas, and no other big events, that would be an entire year that I personally would have zero events of interest to me. Now I can pick and choose how I want to play, and what I want to participate in.
  3. I think it will have to be something reasonably accessible, so I'd expect most likely coal, and slightly less likely free xp. I think steel, RP, or dockyard are all extremely unlikely. Regardless, I am very much looking forward to her. Haida used to be one of my favourite ships (before she was heavily nerfed with the IFHE rework, and tier 7 turned into the worst tier in the game), and something similar based on the Daring at high tier sounds very exciting to me! I'd like an Australian version of the Canadian cobra chicken thank you! Please get this one right WG...
  4. Well they are the same class of ship, using the exact same guns, so they're going to be pretty similar. Vampire has half the torpedoes, so they need to do something to compensate her for that, as well as differentiate the two. If you look at similar ships in the game, they have usually dropped those ships a tier, or made them exceptional gunboats to compensate. Kidd is a tier lower than the rest of her class, Friesland has the highest dpm at tier 9, Haida is a tier lower than Cossack because she has one less turret (and Cossack needed a lot of buffs over her testing period to get her to work in tier 8), while Akizuki and Kitakaze are exceptional gunboats AND get TRB. About the only exception to this is Orkan, who loses a torp launcher compared to Lightning (but does get 12km 76kt torps with a short reload), however she is an awful ship compared to Lightning - we most definitely hope they don't balance her as badly as Orkan. Vampire needs something going for her over Daring. She currently would be a balanced tier 9, probably on par with Jutland (which is why I've always suggested she should be a tier 9), while not being as good as Kitakaze, Friesland, or Yolo Emilio. The question is how is she going to be balanced, because they'll have to give her some pretty serious buffing to get her up to tier 10 levels. Not that I'm complaining once again - these are just the initial stats, she will be adjusted. She will either end up being a better gunboat than Daring, or she'll be moved to tier 9, or she'll be an underpowered and pointless sister ship like Orkan. I also think Daring is quite a balanced ship, she is good but not great, and there are quite a few T10 DD's better than her. Lightning is by some margin the best ship in the RN DD line imo.
  5. Daring is a good ship, but she's definitely balanced after a string of reload nerfs. Why would they want this? I would think if they are both going to be at T10 then Vampire should clearly have better guns, since she has half the torps. Clearly having worse guns and worse torps is not going to result in balance. Having said that, I'm very excited to see the ship announcement, and I'm interested to see how she ends up. I would think that she'll end up a better gunboat than Daring, but it really depends on the design intent they end up going for.
  6. I'd much rather have Commonwealth hydro (3.5/2.5km range, 3 min duration) like Haida, than standard hydro. This would fit much better with creep smoke, in that it is defensive but slightly more attacking than RN DD hydro. The 5km hydro is a downgrade for the ship overall in comparison. She's definitely underpowered at T10, compared to any related T10 ship, not just Daring. She would be a balanced T9 with these exact stats. Compared to Daring, she has no heal and less health, 25% longer reload while having half the torpedo capability. The only thing she genuinely has better than Daring is the range, but this is on a ship with fairly floaty shells at 13km range, giving diminishing returns for range increases. You can get all the range you could ever functionally use on Daring simply by taking AFT, and Daring's range is very generous for her shell arcs as well. Not that I'm complaining, these are initial stats, she will be buffed if they want to leave her at T10. I've always said she is a better fit at tier 9 though, and that is confirmed in my mind by them giving us what is statistically a tier 9 ship.
  7. I had to look twice at that 7800 doubloon cost as well! You get the pleasure of doing what will no doubt be a pretty serious grind so you can still pay 7800 doubloons for the ship? I don't have much interest in Hizen (I really don't like Yamato, Izumo, or any similar ships) so there's basically no incentive for me to participate, but for those who wanted her that's a pretty steep price after so much work. A T9 premium costs 19300 doubloons, so you're basically getting a nearly 60% discount for your rather significant efforts. Doesn't seem worth it to me, and I would have to really want the ship to decide to grind for it. At least for those of us who already have Yahagi, we can get 4000 doubloons for a much more achievable 15 stages. Win/win for me, I'll not put in much comparative effort, make 4000 doubloons, and not have to get a crappy tier 9 BB (my opinion only!). For anyone excited by the prospect of getting Hizen however, they just received a bit of a cold shower.
  8. I've been asking for Vampire II on the forums for ages (like half of this forum, let's face it), so happy to see it's coming! Having said that, I've always thought it should be tier 9. It is waaaaay worse than Daring on the initial stats, having significantly worse reload (the same as Jutland on release, 3.5s, compared to Daring's current 2.8s), while losing a torp launcher, having less health, and not getting a heal. The smokes are similar in effectiveness between creep and RN DD smoke, and for some reason she gets standard hydro instead of Commonwealth hydro. These of course are initial stats, buffs will be incoming. I'm still surprised they went with T10 and not T9 though, they're going to have to make her a much better gunboat than Daring to balance her. As for the Fen Yang, that thing looks amazing. A Pan-Asian Akizuki with DW torps (BB/CV only), much better AA plus Def AA consumable, and PA smoke!!! Someone sign me up for that thing. Nerfs inc before release.
  9. Moggytwo

    Stupid Halloween rubbish again

    That's not quite how it works. Halloween has always been a test bed for possible future content (actual historical content, of the type you are requesting), covered in a Halloween style facade. It's supposed to be fun and silly, while giving the devs good data and feedback as to whether their concept for a potential future addition to the game will be viable. Think submarines - this started in game as a Halloween event. This gave them good data to be able to make a decision on whether they would go forward with the class, and a starting point for the design of that class. If this isn't new historical content, I don't know what is. Who cares if they dressed it up in Halloween costume for a couple of weeks? If you want new operations based on historical battles, then continue to argue for it and hope they'll implement it, but taking away the devs primary large player number test bed because you don't like the theme or feel offended because it took away dev time from something else is counter-productive to the game's future. The devs no doubt realise that a portion of the population want more operations. If they aren't doing them, it's because they consider their energies are best spent elsewhere, likely because the popularity of operations is too low. I personally wouldn't mind in the slightest if they bring in new operations, but at the same time I know that I only ever do an operation once, and then never play it again. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who do the same, and the devs likely feel their time isn't being most efficiently spent if a significant portion of the player base simply don't play that part of the game. I have no doubt if the numbers showed operations (or PVE in general) was wildly popular, we'd have a whole lot of it. It seems they don't show that, because ops have been put thoroughly on the back burner.
  10. Moggytwo

    The Extinction of T10 DDs

    Yeah you played really well that battle, and had the better team in the end. My team decided to all go to C cap, so didn't have the spread pressure. I should have tried to engage you harder, I had a decision point midway through the battle where I could go to A and cap and try to spot and engage the enemy cruisers there, or try and pressure you. You were well positioned reasonably close to your team and they were pushed up nicely near the cap, so I went for the first option, which in hindsight was a mistake as my team couldn't put down the cruisers I was spotting, even with me engaging them with guns to draw them out and tank for the team. I had to reflect on that one for a bit, because I think I could have come closer to creating a win scenario with a different option. He definitely had the better positioned team. They were well spread and constantly pressuring the caps with their positioning in both BB's and cruisers. My team wasn't terrible, just not as good. He played it perfectly. I don't find this at all. DD's are extremely capable at any tier, and the best ship for carrying the win. I always feel I have engagement options, and no class really bothers me much. Mind you, I really only play gun focused DD's, and I think torp boats are less enjoyable and generally less capable.
  11. Vermont might be slow and look fat, but it's not actually larger than the other T10 BB's. It also has a 51mm deck, plenty of health, not too much superstructure, by far the biggest salvo alpha in the game with 1.95 sigma and US dispersion and slot 6 mod, and absurd AA numbers plus def AA. This ship likely won't be much fun to play because it's so immobile, but it will likely be too strong and have to be nerfed in 4-6 months.
  12. Moggytwo

    Richthofen

    Although it's appealing to attack the enemy CV off the bat, and MVR is quite good at it, there are a few issues with the idea, as Drakon is alluding to. You have to travel a lot further to attack a CV than a surface ship, so your rate of damage is much lower. Any competent CV player will recognise it early, and make your life difficult through well placed fighters and maneuvering. They won't be able to stop you killing them eventually if you're a good MVR captain, but they will be able to make it take a lot longer. In the meantime the enemy CV will be at full effectiveness against your surface ships until they die. If the enemy CV isn't very good, and lets you kill them without making your life difficult, then they probably wouldn't have had much effect on the battle anyway, so why are you killing them? So basically, you're better off just attacking the most vulnerable or influential enemy surface ships.
  13. So CV's were changed extensively in undocumented changes with the last patch, 0.9.9. According to follow up posts from WG since the patch, some of those changes were intentional, and some were unintentional. This obviously is extremely concerning, especially with the sheer number of changes that were made but not documented. So _Thanagor_ from the NA server has posted a really good thread over there, with a really clear outline of what has changed. I'll copy the details of that post below. Note the only CV related change listed in that patch was as follows: "We've changed the visual appearance of the aiming reticles for carrier squadrons, and also reworked the aircraft camera performance. This change will affect only the visual component of a squadron's interface, making it easier to aim with all types of armament without affecting gameplay." Here is the write up about exactly what was changed: This is just phenomenal. Many CV's feel quite different now. The intra-class balance has been quite affected, with some CV's being a lot more negatively affected than others. The class as a whole is much weaker. CV population seems to be down a fair bit, and we should have stats on that in the next couple of days. How much of this is actually going to be fixed? Will all of this actually be announced at some point? I honestly haven't seen WG do something like this before, so I'm quite surprised.
  14. Moggytwo

    An AA mechanic I don't understand

    Adding to the post above, if there are other ships with AA firing at the same squadron, the actual killing of a plane works like the killing of a ship - whoever gets the last tick of damage gets the kill. This means you could be doing lots of damage but have a heap of actual plane kills taken by another player, it just comes down to chance as to who gets that last tick on a particular plane.
  15. Moggytwo

    Feedback Thread for Update 0.9.9

    This is definitely NOT fixed. I am taking far more losses when playing CV's. In Richthofen last night I was effectively completely deplaned about halfway through both battles I played in her, despite fairly conservative target choices. This simply does not happen previously to this patch unless you make some very silly decisions, yet it seems unavoidable now. When I watch the planes fly up after an attack, they all die. Also, about 2-4 times per battle, I will drop my torps or rockets and they will go way long. For the rockets, I'll click exactly on the right aiming point, the reticle will stop perfectly at the right point, and the rockets will sail well over the ship and land a good 0.5km or more long. Torps will be launched and dropped well before the arming line reaches the target, then the torps will seem to fly in the air for a long time and land almost right next to the target with no time to arm. This is happening on perhaps 1 out of every 4-5 drops? As you can imagine it's incredibly frustrating, especially when you set up a perfect AP rocket attack and drop at exactly the right time. It's possible something similar is happening with the bombs as well, but it's hard to tell - I've had some very dubious bomb misses where I am almost certain the bombs land outside the reticle. I haven't seen any of this happen before this patch, and this one issue makes the class unplayable, even without the massively increased plane losses. Edit: ping seems fine in all respects, no ping changes, no signs of lag at any point of the entire play session, no similar issues in other classes, the issue is happening on all CV's played since the patch. These two quotes do not seem to correlate. You don't make undocumented changes, but here is a long list of undocumented, intentional changes. The boost changes and the CV ordnance drop pattern changes in particular are both very significant and should have been announced in the usual balance dev blog last patch, as well as obviously being put in the patch notes. Loading up the game in a new patch and finding one of the classes to be wildly different and heavily nerfed in so many ways, with no indications of changes prior to finding them in game apart from what was advertised as a visual only reticle change (that seems significantly more difficult to use, especially the rocket reticle), really is not acceptable. I've never seen anything like this patch, and I've been playing this game since closed beta.
×