Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

643 Excellent


About StoneRhino

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,303 profile views
  1. No warship should be "Toothless". If you make CVs 100% support there will still be complaints about CVs. They could be zero spotting DPM machines and there would still be complaints. These arguments are in bad faith because you will never reach a point to make all surface ships happy much less CVs. That doesn't mean they can't be balanced. It just means that as players we need to accept that we are not going to like some parts of it. If you make CVs 100% dependant on their teams you will lose players. Players that care want to feel like they're doing something. Spotting a high value target and watching your team not shoot at it is very annoying and you want to make that the mainstay of CV gameplay.
  2. You jumped in on my response to a "Fictional world without CVs". Which you cannot just take designs built with CVs in mind and remove them without hampering some nation's more than others. A good sign that CVs need to be at n the game was the fact that CE was not an automatic skill for every class.
  3. No because AA is not evenly weighted for all ships. Not all armor schemes are designed to fight in the absence of air attacks. Compare higher tier German armor vs USN for example. There is a reason why one is at the mercy of AP bombs and the other is not. Imagine taking a NC and giving her a Bismarck style turtle back instead of her AA suite. You cannot argue that you want a fictional world with no CVs without fixing the design issues that need to balance AA protection.
  4. So what buffs do you suggest for ships that used available weight and deck space for AA and armor to defend against air attacks?
  5. The game loses players all the time because of things CV counter. It leaves the players who enjoying not having their counter; who in turn rant and rave about their counter being present.
  6. StoneRhino


    https://patents.justia.com/patent/9919217 It was just rebrought up recently I think with Anthem.
  7. StoneRhino

    More and More Passive...

    Have you ever considered that many players are not here to spend 15 minutes doing nothing. When all players play passively nothing happens. And you still are yet to address any of the mechanics that support playing passively. Base your entire argument on my stats when I openly say I play too aggressively, you would think the number of ships with single digit survival rates would say enough. If I didn't have an argument I would probably be trying to appeal to authority too.
  8. StoneRhino


    EA iirc just got caught admitting to as much
  9. StoneRhino

    Players like this should be banned

    The best defense against sync dropping with a not account oddly enough is a healthy CV population. So instead of ranting about how this can be allowed. Ask why some players think this is better than having functional CVs.
  10. StoneRhino

    More and More Passive...

    Again, you think there is some great insight into winning in this game. What you are saying is effectively "Smart players pick the middle square first in tic-tac-toe". Its like this, most players pick the easiest way to meet their desired performance level. This game promotes passive game play so most players play passively. Again there is a difference between yoloing and playing aggressively. It is far easier to dial aggression back when needed than teach a passive player when its a good time to be aggressive or even just to move up and support a push.
  11. StoneRhino

    More and More Passive...

    Lol, my top ship is the old hiryu at 70% my first tier 4 BB Myogi used to run a 60+ % wr. You don't understand I tanked my own stats because of the passive nature of the game. Once you get some more experience you'll understand that this is not a serious game outside of the very highest level and even then it's laughable as an esport. If you enjoy cowering in the back go ahead but don't pretend that you have some special insight into the game. Just like how you don't have a come back to my pointing out that the mechanics behind kiting are what they are. Trying to cower behind stats just like you cower in the back in game.
  12. StoneRhino

    More and More Passive...

    Sorry I'll read that more in depth later. You survive late game and prey on the ships that your more aggressive allies damage, forced cooldowns or crippled. You take advantage of the angles that your more aggressive allies forced and most likely took advantage of their spotting as well. The sad part is that had you supported them instead being passive, they might still be afloat. You sound like you don't understand the difference between controlled aggression and yoloing. Cowering behind stats like they mean anything, like you still believe this game is like Chess. When in fact this is multiplayer tic-tac-toe.
  13. StoneRhino

    More and More Passive...

    I agree and feel like when you talk about aggressive play people associate it with yoloing and that's not the case. Like see below. You are confusing the game's mechanics and the actions of its players. Kiting for example. Kiting is one of the best and most used actions in the game. Kiting does not work because of skill but because of in game mechanics. The kiter has the advantage in nearly every aspect. Firstly, the kiter gets shorter range, in that you lead ahead of the ship. So if we imaging a 10km chase and kiter leads the kited 1km ahead for a range of 9km while the kited aims ahead 1km for a range of 11km. We can agree that with IFHE the bow and superstructure are penned so aim is less important than rate of fire and dispersion. Shorter range means less dispersion, better arcs and therefore more hits. Secondly the kiter controls the engagement in that they can choose when to open up and use more turrets while the kited risks dropping further behind everytime that they attempt it. Adding more rounds down range which again results in more hits. It is also worth mentioning that more hits also result in more fires but I was leaving RNGesus out of this. If you take two perfectly equal players and give them both the exact same ship the kiter will always win. You can't have both players kite so the player who pushes is at a disadvantage. That is on top of the natural disadvantage that an attacker always faces. The current state of HE means that any push will cost HPs. There is literally nothing you can do besides being undetected. The vision mechanics as they are further support defense. Consider you have a classic flame thrower behind an island and another ship has to come into range to spot it. The ship that closes or goes around that island exposes itself to the possibility of being spotted itself and at the mercy of an entrenched enemy. This means that the only way to cross "No man's land" is to be willing to sacrifice HPs and maybe a lighter ship just to get the intel need for a push. Without a significant skill difference attacking is always a bad idea. The classic ideas of defense support this as does many built in game mechanics. This is true but leads to even more stale passive game play. Which is the complaint. There is a saying as old as multiplayer games that's "Stay alive and do damage" it's true and easily understandable, don't act like not dieing is some super game changing idea. Watch team matches and tell me those are not passive for the most part. The discussion is passive vs aggressive vs yolo, you can pushup aggressively and not be over extended. There is a huge difference between blindly charging in that I'm not advocating for and aggressive plays. You just need players that of the same mindset. If you only care about stats than for sure play passive but if you want to have a more engaging game push more. Again don't blindly charge in but take ground when you can and don't give it back unless you have too. You'll find it more of a challenge than going to your favorite island and doing the same thing over and over again.
  14. StoneRhino

    More and More Passive...

    You just need incentives for getting hit. Like say... Add a medal for 3 million + potential damage, change dreadnought to just talk by a flat % while in game. Maybe keep dreadnought the same but add a "Zombie" medal for taking 150-175% of your hp in damage. Secondaries are weak when talking about BB brawls. I would never sacrifice main batteries for secondaries. If you want BBs up front you need to reduce HE pen or separate Fires from HE. Raise BB citadels slighty. You could even accomplish this through skills or upgrades. Say "STS armor" and have it increase your effective armor on bow, stern, upper Hull and deck vs HE. To include HE bombs and rockets.
  15. StoneRhino

    More and More Passive...

    Bad stats for aggressive play just supports the idea that the game mechanics support passive play. I never advocate for aggressive play unless you're willing to throw your stats out the window. There is a difference between aggressive play and yoloing. Many times aggressive play becomes a yolo because your team abandoned you. Aggressive play is far more difficult than passive play and often requires like minded individuals. For example an aggressive BB that is taking hits just to take hits is bad. But a BB that is taking hits to create angles for his team is great. Add a second BB that is willing to take over the lead so the other BB can heal and you have the makings of a great game. I can't count the number of times I look at my allies and it looks like I have support. Take up an aggressive position only to have them run off. I don't even get mad anymore. Yup, it's funny how people want to pretend like this is new.