Jump to content

LoveBote

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    8,745
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9171
  • Clan

    [90TH]

Community Reputation

4,059 Superb

7 Followers

About LoveBote

  • Rank
    Vice Admiral
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

WG

  • Position
    ---

Recent Profile Visitors

8,938 profile views
  1. LoveBote

    Premium Ship Review #137 - Indomitable

    oh also worth mention, the upcoming British Legendary Commander, Admiral Cunningham, will be of only moderate use to Indomitable drivers, something about Cunningham's torpedo/flood perk.
  2. LoveBote

    Premium Ship Review #137 - Indomitable

    thankyou for the detailed review, the graphs are gorgeous too with lots of useful details. I remember Indomitable back when the Rework went live in 0.8.0, no I'm not an ST, but I fought a number of battles with my trusty Zeppelin (pre long series of nerfs) and Indomitable was a solid opponent, much liked by their ST commanders. It is sad to see what it has become, but not surprising. Even the choice of bombers and attack fighters makes little sense, why choose the relatively obscure Sea Hornet over the much more produced and certainly more effective, fast, agile and compact Hawker Sea Fury? This choice would have allowed Indomitable to carry a far larger complement of reserve, and possibly on deck, aircraft. But then I forget, who gives a damn, really? Well some of us are sure, that the rework wasn't worth the effort, doing more harm than good to the game/
  3. about damned time. I look forward to WOWS devs spending more time, reviewing and revising the new player experience. Until these changes go live, we will still see new players, pressing battle, and without realizing it (having not paid sufficient attention to the huge amount of in port info) find themselves out of protected MM (if they ever knew they benefited from protected MM), in a t5 ship without captain skills unlocked or only just unlocked with a single point available, bottom tier versus pro seal clubbers and 3 enemy cvs. @Hapa_Fodder it is about time, new players recieved a gratuity of 10 skill points as soon as they unlock their 1st tier 5 warship. Close the skill gap a little, let's stop sending new peasant recruits to battle with wooden letter openers astride donkeys versus knights in full armour upon fully trained destriers. Still no new player tutorial, while new players can still bypass the new player experience by buying a t5 premium ship, which is also, bad for the new player experience of the game, and of course bad for their team mates. Why is WG so opposed to a new player tutorial? How do I know this is possible? Because i started an alt account a year ago to rediscover the joys of being a new player. Suffice to say, that experience is crap.
  4. fair points. To my mind we are in a glass half full/empty situation with these changes, they don't go far enough to get a thumbs up, but they are not so bad as to be completely trashed. Better safeguards are needed, when I speak of monthly spending caps, I am thinking of relatively minor sums (50$) until an account has id verification (to protect minors, and parents, for example). At the least, for the more compulsive/obsessive gamblers among us, id verification represents a pause, a moment to reflect, "am I really that desperate that I am willing to send WG a scanned copy of my id?" I am quite sure, as doubtless you are, WG won't do anything in this direction, unless we ask in a forceful manner, making ourselves heard. But the community is not exactly united in our view on this subject, which makes things much harder than they need to be.
  5. It is true, a hard limit on how much a person can spend is much healthier, and limits the potential for abuse. I am sure WG can go further, for example, setting a lower hard monthly limit until an account's owner's ID has been verified. This would also have the extra benefit of increasing account security. Remove time constraints on directives, so that players do not feel arm twisted into spending money (aka PR), the old epic mission arcs were much better, I have my premium Shinonome and Yamamoto legendary captain from these. I still spend money to help me progress, on flags and premium time. The epic mission arcs are to my mind, better at ensuring longer term player engagement. the above and more would be steps in the right direction.
  6. LoveBote

    Need help from some of you Military man ?

    You need to look at ships underway, and at night. Ships at anchor have a different set of lights. here is a chart with the fuller set of possible navigation light combinations. At anchor, in port, you will only see white lights (normally), arranged according to the vessels length, type and profile. You have until next Monday to prepare for your exam, so study hard
  7. LoveBote

    The NERFING Game

    Shh, no naming and shaming allowed.
  8. LoveBote

    Shame about the Hawkins

    she is supposed to have very high firing arcs, can you not use the 4th and 5th while island camping and firing from cover?
  9. LoveBote

    The NERFING Game

    fabulous powers, but one fatal flaw, it is defenceless when attacked with exploding rotten tomatoes. (googling for suitable gif)
  10. LoveBote

    The NERFING Game

    Well the nation whose sea going vessels appear to be OP in the eyes of certain players of a certain game is the only nation which players consistently decry for unfairly lenient treatment by the developers (who shall remain anonymous to prevent rotten tomatoes being thrown) of a certain online game, and this despite the most important nation in a certain online game for the number of seagoing vessels which are objectively and scientifically proven by researchers (who shall remain anonymous) of a leading research forum (which shall also remain anonymous), to be even more OP, and whose ships are rarely nerfed because the sheer quantity of rotten tomatos that would be thrown would be enough to sink a tomato tanker, case in point a certain CV of a certain nation that is no longer available for sale, because it is deemed more OP than decency permits, has been withdrawn from sale, rather than nerfed as would be considered reasonable for any other CV of any other nation because anonymous devs are afraid of the crowds of anonymous rotten tomato throwers. Nevertheless, I agree with the OP, who I shall refrain from mentioning. A very mild nerf to AA mount survivability which would only help attacking air squadrons late game, is quite meaningless for a ship which recieves a considerable buff from changes to torpedo detection perks and torpedo dmg mitigation. It is being said that a large container of rotten tomatoes is being shipped to a certain city in ####bleep#### even as we discuss this matter. edited : remove name and shame
  11. can we add my own little proposal to this list : designed in the 1930s, no examples built, no idea what happened to the designer (Ushakov), probably shot.
  12. well this is one major reason none were built, Soviet Naval doctrine called for a defensive naval strategy operating in coastal and friendly waters with land based support, not for projection around the world.But they did have designs, until they shot their own designers.
  13. but the point I have made, is that Soviet Russia, did have a good number of design studies available. Nothing (except the planes) would need inventing to form a tech tree. Given the material impossibility of Soviet Russia actually building a CV in this period of history, I have other doubts about their urgency for WOWS, but nevertheless, fakes would not be required.
  14. half a dozen The Soviets had a number of design studies and blueprints, but they were unable to progress them for several reasons a) Stalin had an entire younger generation of ship designers murdered or sent to Siberia, creating great disruption in naval spheres* b) Russia did not have the technical ability to build and operate carriers at that time (lack of suitable aircraft, lack of available dockyards, lack of resources with more urgent competing projets taking priority, lack of engineers and workers with the skillsets required) c) The naval doctrine did not require aircraft carriers, during the 1930s Russia was planning for a defensive war where the navy would operate in friendly, coastal waters (hence the emphasis on Submarines). one reason I am surprised WOWS lesta insists on glorifying Stalin, given he was so busy murdering his own naval engineers. see @Kingpin61's reading list, he has prepared some excellent stuff on this topic. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/189945-kingpins-reading-list-online-naval-books-that-are-great-resources/
×