Jump to content

khaenn35

Members
  • Content Сount

    20,147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6044
  • Clan

    [SPTR]

Community Reputation

749 Excellent

About khaenn35

  • Rank
    Admiral of the Navy
  • Birthday 07/02/2002
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    ka_henn@yahoo.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

13,869 profile views
  1. We appreciate that you guys help to sustain the game through purchases. But you wont exactly have any potatoes to batter without us to bring up the numbers, nor the encouragement to encourage advertisement without us. Like it or not, WOWS is made for a niche "old-fashioned" audience. Unlike games like CS:GO or COD the game wont survive in terms of player numbers without F2Ps to bring it up. Many of us eventually have the resources through age or finance to afford purchases - if we arent scared off by the bell curve. Others like myself have been gifted ships because of our dedication to the game, simulating it in our own way. We are grateful for your keepjng the game up, but whether you like it or not, we are still a very important part of the game. THIS.
  2. Some prespecification: -Musashi is an OP premium: her losses in secondary power and AA and slight accuracy debuff do not in any way make up for the sheer power of still-very accurate 460mm guns. This mattered especially so in the last T9 ranked battles: I could predict a match with 90% accuracy based on the number of Kitakazes and Musashis there were in a team. Nevertheless, you miss the point. You have picked merely the premiums that are mostly balanced (even a little bad ), while there are many OP premiums (T-61, GZ, Nikolai, former Kutuzov, Belfast, etc) that you havent mentioned merely because they are not in the shop currently as premiums. The OP's point is that as with the current trend these OP premiums are being locked behind a pay- or timewall in which to encourage 1. Increased buying of lootboxes 2. Paying more for OP ships and 3. Buying quickly in case they leave the shop. WOT has fallen into this with the selling of the TD which name I have forgotten even while promisibg never to sell it again. Again: for us F2Ps this foesnt really matter, we have to suck it up because of our circumstances no matter what. But for you payers (possibly at this point P2Ws), you will be forced to pay exhorbitant amounts to get these stat-inflated ships. And if you are okay with payim for an advantage in terms of getting hold of OP ships a.k.a being a P2W, well...
  3. As an F2P, while its understandable why people are [edited] about us, complaining about here is, well, stupid. As an F2P I am the dedicated player who spends tons of time having to grind and contribute to the already declining player numbers, and we are the ones actually letting credits and doubloons have any appreciable value. I've spent $1 on the game, but my relationships have encouraged others to spend on my behalf (for some inexplicable reason) But that doesnt matter: Warships was made as a game that, while having In Game Purchases and heavy grinding, wasn't to be Pay2Win. If people are willing to accept OP ships as being under a paywall (or OP ships at all), especially a paywall that is chance-based (cough, Gambling), the incentive to grind for ships that will merely be XP-pinatas are gone. The OP was mainly concerned about OP ships being locked behind a seasonal paywall that would encourage unethical semi-extortion from overpriced bundles or Lootbox chances, but Mr "OP's post is feces" and his "OP ships simulate the economy which is why we should pay for them" basically brought it to an even worse conclusion. Consider this: as F2Ps, none of us can really care much for paying the large sums for OP ships since we are financially incapable of doing so, and will be forced to stay with our peashooting F2P ships whether we want to or not. For you, however, it is actually of value when you may have to pay $30 more for a certain ship because of its inflated stats.
  4. khaenn35

    The Skull Throne

    Is this going to be the Skull collection thread from now on? Mister Racker~ @SireneRacker
  5. khaenn35

    One Way to Describe Carrier Play Now - Awful

    The CV gameplay has a lot of refining needed for tons of problems, but singular squadrons aren't of them. The only thing that can be said is "git gud".
  6. khaenn35

    Jean Bart...best BB for Ranked?

    You are absolutely correct: that's Mushi's infamous blushing cheek, which you slap harder than Chris Brown. The problem is that hitting it can be inconsistent, and not too many know of that spot. Bow on, you are essentially invincible, since that spot is already angled.
  7. khaenn35

    Jean Bart...best BB for Ranked?

    As someone who has used the Mushi and other ships, the Mushi is disgustingly effective, probably more so than Jean Bart. The 18.1 inch rifles and stupid armor do a lot.
  8. TL;DR, yes. CE remains the best option for most ships, especially BBs with good concealment such as the RN and USN BBs. While the playstyle isnt close to as effective, CE helps you not to get shot, so it is still great.
  9. khaenn35

    AA really needs a nerf.

    Low tiers need a CV buff and high tiers need a CV nerf. Change my mind.
  10. khaenn35

    Tier VI T-61

    The T-61 is incredibly powerful for a T6 ship, maybe even overpowered. (Probably)
  11. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
  12. And with that, any sort of validity you could possibly have retained is gone. Look here and try to agree with this guy with a straight face. He didn't even switch accounts to write this.
  13. khaenn35

    Water and it’s effect on Boilers?

    Question: If Thorium is so effective, why do countries with Nuclear Reactors but no nuclear weapons not use it, and why do non-nuclear countries not use Thorium? Politics? Cost?
  14. Slight problem: DDs have never relied on flooding to gain damage, they merely take it as a lucky source of damage. To put it simply, floods while having decreased effectiveness now means that they rival fires for lethality: meaning that Battleship players who have been torpedoed and are flooding will have to make a choice between DCPing the said fires (which are incredibly common) or merely DCPing the current floods. The decreased damage makes flooding a reasonable alternative instead of a lethal problem which must be treated immediately, overall increasing or making the flood damages the same while making them more consistent and less frustrating. See above. Let's note that if you have been flooded and it has stuck, most times the torpedo damage is enough to make flooding lethal very, very quickly. You may do less flooding damage overall if assuming that the meta will remain the same, but most occasions the increased flooding damage from before won't make the difference in ship destruction than the current layout. This change won't just change flooding damage, it will change the meta altogether. The compromise of making flooding less lethal means more people are willing to take the less lethal flooding damage in comparison to additional fire damage.
×