Jump to content

GrumpyAJ

Member
  • Content Сount

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4273
  • Clan

    [151ST]

Community Reputation

18 Neutral

About GrumpyAJ

  • Rank
    Lieutenant (junior grade)
  • Insignia
  1. GrumpyAJ

    This game NEEDS skill based match making

    Some thoughts... So what do people really want? Battles with and against people of similar “skill level”? If so play Ranked. Battles with people who understand teamwork and will work together? If so play Clan Battles, or at least div-up. An even distribution of “skill” between the two sides of a random battle? An even distribution of detailed ship “special abilities” (e.g. Radar Cruisers, or specific sub-types - super-cruisers | heavy cruisers | light cruisers, torpedo DDs | gunboat DDs) between the two sides of a random battle? Ignoring the first two - as they already have solutions - what about the last two? An even distribution of skill. One of the things people are reacting is battles where one side appears to have more “skilled” players than the other, and it appears it would be possible within the bounds of the 24 players selected for the match to deliver more “balanced” teams by swapping one or two ships between the two teams, without creating any further match making delay. (From a coding perspective this looks to me like a simple optimisation that uses successive pair-wise swaps that says “If I swap these two players do I get more equal teams”). BUT how do you define “skill”? This links to a previous thread on the most important stat for “stat-shaming”, is it overall WR, ship WR, all time WR, or WR within the last month or 100 games? This question is the critical one. On the “special abilities” or sub-types question the stock answer is that the individual ships have “balans” at their tier to compensate for the presence or absence of special abilities. Without access to the sort of data WG has on the comparative win rate of “balanced” matches between teams with and without radar for example it is not possible to see how true this is. It might be possible to look at the same sort of pair wise swaps within current matches that could help with this issue, but it would be hard to do this for a large number of factors at the same time without needing to go back to the basic matchmaking search that generates the 24 person match. We will get some insight into the impact of additional complexity in matchmaking when subs come out, taking us to 5 ship types and up to 3 tiers within which the MM is attempting to find a solution - does this lead to less “balanced” matches, or longer wait times for battle? So “tell me what you want, what you really really want...”
  2. Celebratory permanent camo for a premium ship you haven’t been able to get for a long time - so why should I be excited??? However - Clan Battles at tier 6 could be interesting, if only the CB times for Asia get widened so Kiwis don’t have to be up after midnight to play more than one match.
  3. More like a slowly converging spiral. For a change like this, slow is a good thing. The shift to enabling slow recovery of dive capacity whilst surfaced is sensible, the balancing lever is the rate at which this occurs. I expect that is where we will see future shifts now the base mechanic has been established. That not all surface ships will have ASW capabilities raises some challenges for players, but is not unheard of between the existing ship types, some CL’s are very limited in their ability to hurt BBs, some ships have very limited AA, Radar is unequally spread... It is all part of the variety that makes the game interesting and challenging. However, probably means I am going to need to do a better job of protecting my team mates when I am playing anti-submarine DDs or cruisers :-(... Anyway, time will reveal all...
  4. GrumpyAJ

    CV's

    Also because good DD’s left unspotted and alive win games. If you want your team to win, eliminating the enemy DDs is a good place to start.
  5. GrumpyAJ

    NEED...HELP...MUST...RESIST...FOMO...!

    I have the same three: Graf Spee as she came as a side benefit in the Odin dockyard, Nelson as was Free XP not cash (and is good for captain training in Narai), and Haida (only 2 weeks ago) because she is great fun (but as noted elsewhere unless WG give us a commonwealth tech tree is a bit of an orphan). That is where I am stopping. What do the others add to your game experience or options? 🤔 I asked myself this question and didn’t find a compelling answer, so I am not afraid of missing out!
  6. GrumpyAJ

    Auction - Value/Worth/Cost

    It’s in the flags section, but only for the multination clusters (Commonwealth, European, Pan-Asia, Pan-America) and lets you put the appropriate national flag on a ship - e.g. white ensign on Haida | Perth | Vampire II...
  7. GrumpyAJ

    CV's

    Coming back to the “spotting by planes” issue... In addition to the following three options: Current system Minimap only Only ships within specified distance of the planes can see, rest get minimap (S4pp3R’s option) I think there is a fourth option as follows When a plane spots a surface vessel the following occurs: The vessel is immediately visible on the minimap The vessel is treated as though it has just fired its main guns, and is thus visible to any ship with line of sight that is inside the main gun range. This state would continue as long as the planes retain a visual on the target. Ship to ship communication of spotting continues as current. This has the impact that at least one surface ship must be close enough to the target to be “at risk” from its main guns before all of the team can “see” the target. The “rationale” for this approach is a communication from the plane of “have a good look over here, I have spotted X”, as opposed to the current “I have spotted X, that is exactly here, moving at Y knots in direction Z and if you shoot I will record your fall of shot and provide you with feedback.” This could be accommodated largely by using existing game mechanics, including providing feedback to the spotted vessel. However, it does not prevent ships sitting at the back waiting for targets to be spotted, as ship-to-ship communication will still enable this, but it would enable ships that have gone out of their way to be stealthy to retain a portion of this when spotted by planes, but with the enemy having a tactical awareness of their general location. Anyway - my 10c worth. Enjoy :-).
  8. GrumpyAJ

    Dutch airstrike in action

    Not having seen first hand, but only the various clips circulating... Perhaps ensuring the air strike planes spawn well outside their target’s AA bubble so that AA has time to fully activate when they get in range, and enabling the player to priority sector etc to mitigate some damage. The other question is whether 20 seconds is long enough. Using torpedos as an comparative example I think a 10km torpedo strike takes longer than 20s to reach the target (to do a similar scale of damage), requiring good judgement and anticipation by the player in their use (unless the target is static or straight lining). I’m sure someone else has the figures at their fingertips. Perhaps a similar time might be appropriate - especially as the main rationale for the mechanism is to stomp on campers.
  9. Servers are rolling out 0.10.4 today which may drive some response issues - it is a huge patch...~22 GB
  10. GrumpyAJ

    CV Thought

    Get the above on AA vs plane numbers etc.., however there is another dimension to the CV - Surface ship interaction that contributes to the negative UX - especially for DD or CL drivers with relatively short range weapons who rely on stealth... it is not a 1 v 1 interaction, but a 1 v many. For me personally this is as much driven by the loss of concealment and in many cases the instant promotion into the enemy teams’ “public enemy No 1”, resulting in rapid focus fire by any larger enemy ships who can bring guns to bear. I suspect in many cases the direct damage caused by the planes is small compared with the HE shells that soon follow, often from outside your main gun range. Normally to be able to spot someone requires a ship is both in line of sight and within main gun range of the ship being spotted, and in the case of smaller ships being spotted by larger generally means a decision by the smaller ship to close on the larger ship (who they out spot) in order to potentially harm them. There is an immediate choice for the spotted ship - fight of flight - often not much of a choice, but a choice and one coming from a situation they can track back to their own deliberate choices (i.e. I tried to sneak up on that cruiser...). To some extent the spotting ship chooses to put themselves at risk of damage by being close enough to spot. We see this as a fair exchange. This isn’t really the case with plane spotting where the CV itself can be sitting quite safe from harm behind their team, creating a feeling for the surface ship of an unbalanced situation over which they have no control. Most of us do not view the planes of a CV as representing the hit points of the player (although to a limited extent they are as the loss of them limits the player’s ability to continue to influence the game) and as such now feel the ability we usually have to fight or flee our spotter does not exist. We cannot “fight” them as they are safely out of range, and we can’t out run planes, the only flight option is to pop a smoke screen if we have one, so in many cases the only choice we really have is whether to take damage from the planes or the surface ships. All feeding a feeling of an unbalanced interaction leading to frustration. IMO the key issue is the current ability of CVs to spot artillery for other members of their team... Not a new theme I know, but one that has not been properly addressed in the game. Grumpy.
  11. GrumpyAJ

    IJN CA

    I am just starting out with Edinburgh, but am thinking because of the vulnerability that its better to take Smoke rather than Radar (seeing we can’t have both 😞) and do the smoke-firing support role. Which means I am now more scared of radar cruisers than BBs...
  12. GrumpyAJ

    SuperBattleship, Satsuma and Hannover

    The amusing part of the proposed game mode - Playing a super-battleship depletes your Intelligence 😕
  13. So now a triple nerf for Thunderer... range reduced twice and Deadeye being removed. I feel the need to channel @S4pp3R on this - slow down WG (https://youtu.be/GmG7yvsOPpc), do things one at a time and observe the differences... Why is Thunderer so strong? Good dispersion, RN BB HE penetration, high fire chance and good concealment that in the current state keeps DE active for longer than most other BBs. This means if she can see you at distance she has a very good chance of dropping a load of nasty HE on you and burning you up... No fun I agree. However we need to pick this apart a bit... Deadeye means probably another 1-2 hits from each well aimed salvo and thus probably another fire. Shouldn’t WG wee what removing DE does first before chopping off more range? The other aspect is the if she can see you question... Either: you have fired your guns, an enemy ship is inside your concealment, or an aircraft has spotted you. In early game it is probably the latter and others have already raised the issue of how CV spotting supports the snipping BB meta. Perhaps if this was addressed she wouldn’t seem so OP? On the other changes (e.g. HMNZS Leander, HMS Fiji, HMS Edinburgh, Stalingrad) I think we are seeing the impact of the Consumables Enhancements skill having buffed their main party trick and this now being nerfed back...
  14. GrumpyAJ

    New Underwater environments !

    And probably on the menu somewhere
  15. GrumpyAJ

    i got a problem

    Sounds like you have a corrupted game file somewhere. I have had similar odd issues in the past. With the latest patch I have the issue that WoWS is not picking up my reversed mouse button settings from Windows :-(. As a first step download and run WGCheck (or if WoWS deployed via Steam use Verify Game Files). If you raise a ticket with WG the first response will be to ask you to use WGCheck, so you may as well get ahead of the curve :-).
×