Jump to content

xEvilReeperx

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [TATER]

Community Reputation

18 Neutral

About xEvilReeperx

  1. Should capping be worth more xp now?

    I don't disagree on spotting, but in your case you actually dealt roughly average damage: about 1-ship kill's worth. Discounting the poorly-rewarded spotting damage, I think 1600 overall is fair for this. That would put you near the top of the average team most of the time even though your contribution in damage terms was essentially lighting 3 fires and landing a single torpedo that caused the bulk of your damage
  2. Should capping be worth more xp now?

    Capping is a multiplier to your XP total, but only if you win. Mediocre performance x no bonus because your team lost = mediocre xp average. This is why the gearing game posted above tops his team, but your game puts you in 4th. Fixed XP rewards just encouraged bots and bot-like humans to rush in, try to cap and die early.
  3. Stalengrad

    You've missed my point entirely. It was that "unique" ships are extremely difficult to balance, and WG has a history of botching the job. The rapid, drastic changes we're seeing to Stalingrad is strong evidence that they are struggling to balance it. I don't want there to be such a ship at TX, the competitive tier WG is pushing heavily, without there being a more accessible copy of the ship available to the masses. I would prefer it not be tier X at all, but I don't think that's a realistic option after all the hyping that has been done. ? I thought this was widely known? "Belfast is obviously a problem, that's why she is suspended for now. We're thinking what an how to do with her. And when. No details for now." (Sub_Octavian) Why is that? Heck, even you assume that WG's response to an OP premium was to release another OP premium. Is that the kind of balancing act you'd like to see at the endgame?
  4. Stalengrad

    Exactly and I think it's worth noting something. Really? Would you say this bow picture is mostly red or mostly blue? Yes, we should have total confidence in WG. They wouldn't make a unique ship that's hard to balance, right? I mean there was Belfast. But that was an accident and they had to stop selling it. There was the MK. Stopped selling it. Saipan. Kaga. Enterprise. Graf Zeppelin, that was definitely a screwup. GC. The Imperator Nikolai monster. Kamikaze and Fujin... There are definitely no signs of balance problems occurring with Stalingrad. They're sure to get it right. And if they don't, well all you have to do is grind for a year or so against those people that do have it, at a constant disadvantage if the ship turns out to be too good. That will definitely be healthy for competitive play, sure to entice more people into an already stagnant game mode. Nothing to worry about! Right? Warning: This post contains heavy sarcasm
  5. Stalengrad

    Is the Moskva a Tier 10, BB-caliber ship with improved bounce angles/fuse time and BB side and front armor? Or it a fragile, mostly 25mm-overmatchable-nose cruiser with giant exposed citadels and thin armor on its sides?
  6. Stalengrad

    If Stalingrad becomes a unique "must-have" ship for competitive play because it fulfills both cruiser and BB roles, then the competitive game will be harmed overall. They won't be able to put the genie back into the bottle. I'm concerned it'll poison T10 the way T7 ranked is poisoned by Belfast. It should, very emphatically, not be unique. Maybe they can come up with a variant of Alaska that's available for coal that'll perform in a similar role
  7. What would make AP more attractive?

    Give all zero-damage AP pens (as a result of module penetration) their own ribbon. Entirely cosmetic change. Would reduce a lot of the frustration for me personally
  8. I wonder if you can see the irony in these statements, or if this is deliberate trolling
  9. What you're saying is equivalent to this: "If I want to win games, there is logic in taking a build that averages 49% wins instead of one that averages 55%" The cherry on top is that you traded away most of your ability to influence the game yourself in order to focus on countering a single enemy ship. That is why you won't see above-average CV players taking AS in random battles: tying their chances to win to a team that averages 50% isn't how they get to the top
  10. Common attitude but a fallacy in my opinion. What matters is winning the game which benefits the whole team. Which do you think is going to win the team more games, sinking two or three ships or keeping ships spotted? Take a look at any stat website and you'll see that shooting down plates does not correlate with win rate, average damage dealt does. If you want to be a team player, you should maximize your team's advantage. Shooting down planes helps individual team mates, killing ships helps the entire team all at once
  11. Maybe this is your problem. Of course there should be a risk that you get detected and destroyed.The game is about managing risk. Radar was added because smoke is far too powerful a tool both defensively and offensively to go completely unopposed. Sonar on a cruiser to counter smoke doesn't cut it, as anyone who has actually attempted such a tactic at t8+ will be able to tell you.
  12. Correct! Congratulations, you've learned the first lesson of economics: everything has an opportunity cost. Or as my economics professor loved to say, "There is no such thing as a free lunch"
  13. Nerf Saipan or Remove it!

    This isn't the case any more. Not because they couldn't win in a 1v1, but because you'll never get the opportunity to fight them in that manner because the Saipan fighters can disengage at will without loss, and with their insane speed get to choose their engagements (so you won't typically catch them with their pants down having no ammo left).
  14. Mods legal or otherwise

    Hi, banning mods will affect nothing. The kinds of cheats which are capable of the cheaty things have no problem getting themselves loaded into the client whether there's a mod interface or not. Source: I write software
×