Jump to content

Panzer_Mac_W126

Members
  • Content Сount

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [ERN]

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Panzer_Mac_W126

Recent Profile Visitors

331 profile views
  1. Panzer_Mac_W126

    thanks for the GRIEF WG

    My group's discord when this thread was linked:
  2. I hate how so many of these skills were made by splitting up ones in the original tree. Now rather than spending x amount on one skill for a desired result, I spend x amount for multiple skills to accomplish the same job and now I have less to make up the build I want.
  3. The problem I see with Ranked right now is that they decided this round bronze league had to be mixed between tiers 8 & 9 whereas last season, it was just tier 8 for bronze. That and they spent so much time advertising the removal of Georgia and Alaska that you see those two stomping on anyone who dared bring a tier 8 to the fight. Last season I had lots of fun just because the match ups were so even at tier 8. Yes the Massachusetts was my favorite but I never felt like I was chained to that ship to win. I rolled out the NC, Bismarck, Tirpitz, Alabama, and I also saw people doing well with Amagi and Kii. I also tried running with the Albamarle, Baltimore, and Anchorage. Personally I had my best luck with the Albe. Now it really feels like we just wait in MM to see who was either dumb enough to bring a tier 8 or too poor to bring one of the OP tier 9 premiums. Having bronze as tier 8 and then having 9&10 as the struggle was perfect.
  4. Before the rework I was intrigued by the idea, and when the rework first hit I though some of these skills sounded neat. Now that I have tried them, I am no longer impressed. I'm especially disappointed in how the Battleship tree was done. Too many of the skills were just split from a few of the original ones so they are only good if taken in conjunction with one another. There's almost no room for flexibility in how you set up your ship now. Obviously this hurts brawling ships most as so many of their points are taken up in the new secondary line up that almost nothing is left for anything related to survivability. I personally want to slap whoever decided Superintendent had to be removed from the battleship tree. Also as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, some of the ships in the game don't really play to their specific trees. Personally I have had better luck in ships like Alaska and Puetro Rico by just using them as smaller battleships rather than cruisers. Lastly another problem I have is just how jumbled up the old skills got. Like they just decided these certain skills were too popular and rather than offering a real alternative to them, WG just made them cost more and put some placeholder where that skill used to be. Some of these skills have potential and they would probably work best if they were just added to the old skill tree. I don't see why WG thinks they have to arbitrarily limit the tree to a 4x6 grid when there's plenty of space on the screen. I mean this game isn't that complicated.
  5. Real ship, known existing guns in the IJN arsenal, historic record of rework proposal done for the IJN... I like it. I'd want this sort of premium before we get any more paper ships in the game. They're already adding Strasbourg (Dunkerque's sister) as a T7 so I think this idea should get more support.
  6. It's probably because on ships like Jean Bart and Richelieu the rear fire control system is mainly for the light cruiser mounted on your rear end.
  7. Panzer_Mac_W126

    Clan Commanders

    Port slots are either earned through the monthly mission tasks or by purchase with gold so coal and steel won't be of much use here. Gaelic_knight wants to give port slots they don't want to other players which I think would be a nice benefit to joining a clan but there's the complication of the whole, you know, WG not making money off of that.
  8. Oh sweet! Thanks for letting me know.
  9. That... actually didn't come to mind. I was mainly thinking about in the beginning of the fight before the DDs have found one another or the other times when DDs are being harassed by carrier planes. I was also thinking about AA cruisers like Worcester, and Minotaur in the hopes they could have a job other than sitting behind an island or in smoke just spamming shells. That's actually one of the reasons why I don't like playing those two cruisers actually, I never feel like I'm using them for their purpose when I play them.
  10. Panzer_Mac_W126

    suggestion: battle duration time

    The problem with your logic is that it doesn't account for people who died holding the line. There are still plenty of games that are won because part of your team held the enemy off from encircling everyone or denied them capture points but just didn't live to the end. A good example I can present is a battle I had with the Imperator Nikolai where I did in fact sink three ships in addition to preventing them from capturing our base. I obviously died in this match but it was just the distraction my last surviving teammate (a destroyer with about 200hp left) needed to capture the enemy base and win the game for us. I died, but had I not turned around to defend the base, and die doing so, we would have lost as the enemy had started capturing our base first. By your logic, I don't get rewarded for my contribution to the team because I didn't survive. Not everyone who dies does so because they have an aggressive play style. If you want to punish the YOLO player then you need a more through system than just this person lived and this other person did not. It doesn't factor in people who just had a spot of bad luck in the deployment, or maybe the CV grabbed hold of them and wasn't going to let them go. Plenty of players in destroyers experience that one on a regular basis. They could also be new to that line, or ship and are still learning how to play it. Or they did know what they were doing but thanks to changes made by WG, they now have to ignore what used to work, and learn what works now. Those are things every player has to deal with, and they will die in game while they figure it out.
  11. I know that but as I said, that damage is at the mercy of the AI rolling dice, and the AI has shown it is not the best at leading. Many times only doing damage to planes when it's too late to prevent any damage to themselves. Another part of this suggestion is just how human psychology works. People tend to get frustrated when they feel like they don't have control, and when you leave this up to an RNG damage timer, many certainly won't feel like they have control. Thus leading to their frustration. They may do everything right in that moment but since the AI messed up the dice roll, your effort was for naught. Right now there's not much one can learn from this situation and all they can do is hope the dice land more in their favor next time the AI rolls for AA damage. Whereas if they had control over their aim, there is a chance to learn and apply that knowledge to you next encounter. Another example of how bad the AI can be at aiming for you is secondary battery fire. There are plenty of instances where the AI focuses the secondary battery on parts of a ship it can't hurt but will not adjust its point of aim. This however can be compensated by aiming my main battery where it will be most effective. This simple bit of control offsets the frustration I may feel when my secondaries aren't doing anything but tallying up ribbons without doing damage. Back to the psychological aspect of this, in the new Modern Warfare, the game doesn't use a bullet scan mechanic to calculate damage as it did in the past. Rather MW animates actual bullets in game much how WoWs does with main battery shells, and torpedoes. When I hit a target, it feels more like I put those shots there. When I miss a target I feel like an idiot and I need aim better next time. In either case, I don't feel like I was blessed or denied by some imaginary cone that exists downrange. Yes some will still complain as they always have but I like to think that there are others like myself who will have the same reaction to being given this sort of control. When we see those planes go down, we put those shells on target. When we miss, we look at why and learn from it. We don't get to do that with the current system.
  12. Panzer_Mac_W126

    suggestion: battle duration time

    I know the bill is the same for a loss, I just used that as an example since that's how human psychology tends to work. It would be the same for not rewarding the dead players on the winning team. They would see less benefit in taking risks because if they die, they won't get the rewards. Even if their actions result in a victory, which will likely result in players feeling cheated because they did the work but others get the bonus just because those players survived. You need to reward players who take those risks or they will not want to do so since there is no reward from doing it. I have had plenty of wins where I survived till the end but did not accomplish as much as the players who did not. As such I should not be rewarded for living when someone on my team died but took three ships with them. Any reward should be distributed fairly because as I said the teammates who died may very well be the reason your team won.
  13. There's a lot of hate floating around for carriers, with the loudest suggested solution being "gEt RiD oF cVs!". Yes, I understand there are ships which don't have massive AA batteries and players who struggle as a result. I even remember how the old CV system could delete an AA spec battleship in one pass. However this game features heavily in the era which signaled the end of the artillery ship as the dominant weapons on the sea so I do not agree with removing one of the most revolutionary ship types in naval warfare. There are many ships in this game which feature dual purpose guns as their primary weapon, quite of few of them are destroyers. In the case of these ships I say let the players use these guns when the planes show up. Yes the AI already controls your AA shots but I have seen plenty of instances where the AI just sucks at leading the target. Usually I see this with secondary batteries. This is also likely one of the reasons why such hate for CVs exist since our main way of fighting them puts us all at the mercy of an AI using your AA to play craps. It's largely a game of chance, and the odds suck for the smaller ships. In order to relieve this frustration, I say let players have more direct control of their AA. Actually having some control over this would also allow ships that existed (or were to) as AA ships to fulfill a role other than just spamming shells from behind an island or from a cloud of smoke. Perhaps just use the existing priority sector mechanic to swap these guns from anti-ship to anti-air mode on all eligible ships. Maybe actually being able to directly shoot down airplanes could alleviate some of the hatred for CVs since those players are actually fighting them rather than relying on the AI to roll some invisible dice.
  14. Panzer_Mac_W126

    suggestion: battle duration time

    Problem with rewarding only surviving members is that it may lead to more passive players who are unwilling to risk their ship because if they sink, they don't get the juicy bonus. There have been plenty of instances in WoWs where players have died but were also major contributors to their team's victory. It would be unfair not to reward this when such an action may very well be the reason your team won. Edit: It's the same as someone who plays more passively on the losing team because they don't want the possibility of paying a higher bill for sinking
  15. Panzer_Mac_W126

    Naval Battle tokens

    I would say that if a personal reward system for Naval Battles were to be implemented, rather a new currency Naval Battles should reward you with something already existing in game. If we're talking about getting people motivated to do them, then rewards should be based upon how many stars you clear. This would be to encourage you to attempt all 10 stars. I do see some appeal in another reward set as even I don't feel motivated to try some weekends.
×