Saint Deraj

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Saint Deraj

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral

Recent Profile Visitors

319 profile views
  1. Agreed that officers have little practical use since being removed from wof authority. I don’t know if it’s a glitch or what, but currently after I participate in a wof battle, I land on the wof setup screen; observer only. Meaning I see who’s online from my fleet, but can’t change ships, start/retreat wof, etc. It occurred to me after reading these posts that this is basically what’s suggested above: officers can see who’s online, but only after being involved in wof. Personally, I’d prefer officers always seeing who is online, and the observer screen visible to other members after fighting for their fleet in wof. This may sound overly harsh or paranoid, but giving every fleet member the online players info worries me. It could allow opposing fleets to know exactly what they’ll face in wof simply by getting 1 brand new ensign into the other fleet. Perhaps such spying exists solely in my imagination & has never actually occurred in the game. I’d be surprised if more than a few players had even considered the notion; it’d require substantial effort to gain—at best—a minimal advantage. My concern is that granting universal visibility would make this *much* easier; potentially encouraging a whole new source of undesirable drama & mistrust. Just something to consider. On a more positive note, one useful remaining aspect of the Officer title is to identify experienced players to newer members. Hence, when Joe Noob asks about something in fleet chat, he can feel confident that Jane Officer’s advice is sound. There’s also something to be said for prestige... of course it’s just a game, but I felt proud on the day I got promoted, and still do! It’s nice to be recognized by one’s peers, even if it’s not exactly something I’d put on my résumé. 🤓 So I’m okay with it being mostly symbolic; at least until an update decides every officer gets a nuke to use on the damn super ships... In closing, sorry for all the words. I promise to one day make a post less than 30 pages long– but apparently not today. 😝
  2. Totally unannounced server fails; at least twice now in what, 12 hours? Planned shutdowns have always been repeatedly proclaimed by admin chat message warnings in my experience. Unfortunately, I assume lack of announcements means these are a malfunction of some sort. Very frustrating, to put it mildly. The sudden server crash several hours ago occurred just after I’d destroyed the garrison in a harbor assault worth over 40 thousand steel. Even worse, I was recording that battle for a harbor assault guide I’ve been working on. It didn’t kick me out; my ships just kept floating around, carrier continuing to launch scouts, but no enemy targets left to shoot. So I let it keep recording for a while hoping for the best, to no avail. Wanted to post the video for anyone who wants to relive my frustration, but it’s almost 5 minutes long, so we’ll have to settle for the final screenshot before I gave up.
  3. I appreciate the kind words and further consideration. Ironically, just before reading your original post, I had been in an Online Great Battle where only my sub and an enemy carrier remained at endgame. The carrier had—as is the often utilized strategy—retreated to safety in the corner with its two intact heavy guns, and I only had about 1/3 oxygen left. Because carrier-based aircraft squadrons count as an occupying force for capture victory purposes, I couldn’t force the actual ship to come into range. There wasn’t enough time for me to retreat, surface, replenish oxygen, submerge, then return to and sink the carrier. So I couldn’t get to it without exhausting oxygen and getting killed by heavy guns and/or torp bombers when forced to surface; couldn’t achieve capture victory because its squadrons only needed to pop in to restart the clock; and ultimately had no viable route to victory. I could only try a suicide run or wait it out in stalemate until time expired. I defaulted to the latter and lost the battle. My point in sharing that story is that there are numerous scenarios wherein a capture victory is frustrated due to ships’ limitations &/or abilities. Among them, I’d say that an aircraft squadron counting as a capture occupier (thus allowing a single remaining ship to hide in a corner) is far more illogical and less true to the spirit/intent of the capture victory concept than is capture prevented or achieved by land assets. The scenario I encountered (for neither the first nor the last time) is a lot more likely & less appropriate in my opinion, yet I accept it as an unfortunate necessity of the delicate game balance formula. So, although I very much empathize with the irritation of fighting a long, close battle only to find that a technicality precludes any chance of an otherwise achievable victory; those occasional losses seem to me a reasonable price for the many other times when I’ve won because my sub could do things the remaining enemy couldn’t. Perhaps if it were more common, or more egregious, I’d feel differently. I am curious about what KM sub you were referring to... you wrote KM ss4, obviously a typo, but I’m not sure which one you meant. I only have an ss55 so far, personally, so it’s all I know. Although it lacks any main or secondary gun, it has an AAW listed in stats as doing a whopping 15 damage. If auto gun setting would is on, when my ss is surfaced that weapon shoots at any surface target in range (although hilariously, I’ve never seen it shoot an aircraft), doing negligible damage. Its only practical use IMO is to allow my official participation (& claim rewards) in quick battles when I hadn’t had a chance to really hit anything. Still, it’s technically a surface weapon, and theoretically could destroy any surface target, given enough time. Every other KM sub’s stat sheet also show AAW, with increasing but still minimal damage. It seems unlikely that only the lowest level KM sub’s AAW is able to hit normal surface targets, so again, I’m very curious what you meant. Perhaps, if you don’t have Auto Gun “on” in settings, you’ve never seen the AAW firing at ships or land guns. That explanation would make sense, since there’s no way to manually target aircraft or anything else with the AAW in a sub. Alright, I’ve once again written WAY too much about a fairly obscure topic. Thanks again for your time and patience, Gentle Reader!
  4. Amazing to see guns in capture zone survive this late in the battle! It rarely takes more than 2 minutes for all enemy and ally guns located anywhere near center to be destroyed in my experience. I sincerely hope that this is an intentional feature and not a bug. First, it just makes basic logical sense. Fixed, land-based assets represent their side’s control of a given area; possession established to a degree that’s at least equal, if not greater than a ship’s presence does. Historically, for example, driving back the Japanese fleet was only the first step. No area was secure until the arduous task of eliminating all entrenched land forces on every island was finished. Only after Allies had cleared the enemy sea, air, and land forces was victory complete Second, the idea offers an interesting strategic dimension. If one side can protect these fairly vulnerable positions for long enough, they gain an advantage in the capture stage. To exploit or deny the enemy this benefit requires field awareness and tactical planning, hence enriching the game. Finally, it’s a good idea from a gameplay perspective. True, a lone sub could potentially find achieving capture victory almost impossible. Yet even one stealthy sub also has a significantly enhanced ability to frustrate enemy capture attempts. Like carriers, subs enjoy unique advantages over conventional ships, but specialized power has a price. Lack of strong surface attack is part of the cost for subs, and a vital aspect of game balance. Sometimes a key weakness means defeat, other times a key strength brings victory; all part of the challenge. Logically, if guns shouldn’t be allowed to capture because a sub’s weak surface attack can’t easily destroy them, then subs—which are completely immune to both ship and land guns when submerged—shouldn’t be able to capture until they surface. I can’t think of any prior issue on which I’ve disagreed with the distinguished Neuner. In this case, however, I do hope he’s mistaken. The possibility of land guns contributing to a capture victory is fascinating to me, even if it’s highly unlikely to happen and I’ll probably never even see it firsthand. In my most humble opinion, the concept makes logical sense, adds strategic nuance, offers another potential reward for smart, tactical captains, and its minimal impact on game balance and enjoyment is positive overall.
  5. The new Provence BB, which is available only with purchase of the Christmas special steam pack, has an upgrade slot that allows either mines, hedgehogs, or torpedoes. Crazy powerful ship if you can afford it.
  6. Agree, agree, agree! Very frustrating to have spent time & resources on defense when “none” really is currently the most likely to dissuade attack. Also disappointing to amass success at HA attack by carefully building specialized HA fleets, and have no ranking/reward to reflect it.
  7. wof

    Building on the initial suggestion, perhaps each ship could be assigned a base numerical value, and said value modified for degree of vetting & # of upgrade slots filled. Thus a fully outfitted & vetted BB50 would be a much higher value than a brand new DD1. This way, rather than a somewhat laborious process of specifying level, quantity, etc. of each ship for every wof, Chiefs could simply choose a maximum acceptable total value for each fleet. In addition to simplifying setup, this would allow each fleet to decide its configuration independently—and therefore secretly—while still assuring fairness. So you’d know the opposition won’t exceed a certain total strength, but not the exact ships your fleet will encounter. This maintains an element of tactical strategy and gamesmanship that I feel is critical, yet allows controls to prevent ridiculously lopsided matches. I realize the initial task of assigning fair & reasonable values to every ship, and determining appropriate modifiers for vetting & upgrades, would mean substantial work for developers. Also, no matter how carefully chosen, the assigned values would inevitably displease some players. A range of objections would surely ensue– from bullies complaining that their favorite super ship has too high a value for most wars to reasonable concerns about game balance; all requiring ongoing evaluation & refinement over multiple upgrades. It'd certainly involve toil & trouble, but the end result could drastically improve the game’s most important multiplayer activity. With such a simple, fair, & understandable system, both existing and new players could get far more excited about & involved in War of Fleets. I’m quite certain that this would quickly translate into more players playing more often, hence justifying & rewarding the developer’s effort. Of course not everyone would be 100% satisfied, but it’d certainly inspire a LOT more overall excitement about Wars of Fleets (& fleet membership in general) for players of all levels.
  8. A very helpful thing to learn! Thanks to 1Diddy for bringing it up and Neuner for the solve... can’t imagine the forum working any better than it did right here.
  9. If ever I were to give in and use a certain ubiquitous abbreviation for the first time, this would be it! Instead, I’ll write out the full words and announce that I am, in fact, laughing out loud. Three of us writing basically the same thing simultaneously, only to discover an echo upon posting... just hilarious. I, of course, always have to write a damn novel and hence was not once but twice beaten to the punch. I can, perhaps, add my experience to Neuner’s point. I too got my 1 of 2 on stage one (where I remain) at the very beginning of a 2 week cycle, right after ranking rewards were given. If it is a ratio, and does start tabulating on that cycle, it should be very easy to test. I look forward to doing so when the current cycles restarts in a day or so.
  10. I appreciate the input, Alta. The win-loss ratio theory does seem to make sense, and is probably the one I’ve heard most since beginning my inquiries on this matter. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in the original post, I’m just not convinced that this is the answer. The first problem, as I see it, is that the number for each stage (2, 5, & 10) clearly refers to how many times the achievement’s criterion (whatever it is) must be fulfilled. This is shown by the increasing count at each stage of the achievement (e.g., 1/2; 3/5; 6/10) which shows current progress and awards the given stage’s star after doing “it” that many times. The first star needs 2, second star 5, third star 10 times. For the ratio theory to be correct, the number would have to refer both to the ratio AND number of times achieved, which seems unlikely. The next issue (again & as always, merely in my opinion), is difficulty. By the ratio theory, the 2nd & 3rd star would require a 5-1 & 10-1 win-loss ratio achieved 5 & 10 times each, respectively; an extremely high threshold to put it mildly! Also this begs the question: at what interval are ratios tabulated? Every two weeks like leaderboard rankings; every day; cumulatively over the player’s entire career? Regardless, since this information isn’t visible to players, there is no way to test the idea. In my opinion, it just seems far too complicated and vague to be the answer. I really do appreciate the feedback, and apologize if I sound overly critical or harsh. I am in no way an expert or authority; I have no special knowledge to make any of my opinions necessarily accurate. I can only share my thoughts, as I hope many others (and eventually the developer) will also.
  11. The Master of Mankind achievement states: “Get 2 Rating Win/Defeat in Online” (# then increasing to 5 for two stars & 10 for three). I see players from level 26 to 110 with varying degrees of fulfillment, some with rating scores in tens of thousands, others with zero. I’m at 1of 2 myself, and have no idea how I got the one or what the achievement actually requires. Put simply: how is this achievement earned? On one of the many occasions when I’ve asked this question in chat, a fellow player (I forget whom) called it “the game’s greatest mystery.” This description has proven extremely apt as I’ve unsuccessfully sought an answer ever since I first saw the achievement. Many wonder, yet no one seems to know, and it’s beginning to drive me nuts. Apparently a majority of those who have played awhile have it, some have even completed it, but none have been willing or able to explain how so far. I've seen theories and speculation, but none seem adequate. If it’s about damage done or lack of damage received or both, why wouldn’t it just say that? Since the number (2,5,10) definitely means it must be done that many times for each stage (proven by all who have it partially completed), it seems dubious that the number also describes a required ratio of wins to losses in online battles. What, then, could this cryptic description actually mean? I’m almost starting to think it’s some sort of accident; an incomplete concept that wasn’t supposed to be included, but is now too difficult to remove. That doesn’t seem likely either, but as I said, the mystery is starting to make me crazy! I’m totally open to further speculation and hearing when & how people believe they earned it; perhaps together we can at least narrow the possibilities. Most ideally, I’d love for this to be passed up to the developer and hopefully get a clear, final answer to my very simple question: How is the Master of Mankind achievement earned?
  12. I can’t help noticing that this question still hasn’t been answered definitively.... I am extremely curious as well.