Jump to content

Crucis

Members
  • Content Сount

    18,335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    18923
  • Clan

    [SALVO]

Community Reputation

5,261 Superb

7 Followers

About Crucis

  • Rank
    Admiral of the Navy
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

7,984 profile views
  1. Crucis

    I think CVs are ruining the game

    Bingo! This is exactly the problem. Every time a significant new update comes along, be it some change to the mechanics or a new line of ships or whatever, there are always a group of players who are too stubborn and set in their ways to change what they do to adapt to the new mechanics or the new ship line or whatever. And then they come here and complain that WG is ruining the game, when it's really their refusal to adapt and the need they feel to complain that ruins the game.
  2. Crucis

    players losing interest

    1. I haven't found that to be the case at all. 2. WG has had +/-2 MM for something like 10 years, including all the time in WoT. it's not going to change. And frankly, it's a LOT more challenging to be down 2 tiers in WoT than it is in WoWS. Players in WoWS who complain about being down 2 tiers don't begin to understand how easy they have it, if they haven't played WoT. 3. People rarely complain about a lack of game modes. It's a lack of new tech trees that get the most complaints, I suspect, just ahead of a lack of new maps. As for new modes, I haven't see a one of them that interests me. They're all too damned cheesy and foolish. OTOH, I do like the occasional battle on Epicenter Islands of Ice where there's a blizzard over the epicenter area for the entire battle, though personally, I wish that it would cover the entire MAP for the entire battle. Weather effects are one HELL of a lot better and more realistic feeling than some cheesy powerful circles.
  3. Perhaps. I assumed that he was talking about the 4th stage (a citadel based task) of the 4th part of the Exeter mission.
  4. Meh, just run RN CLs in coop, and get your cits off of enemy cruisers in real hurry.
  5. Crucis

    players losing interest

    Oh? What is it? Curious minds wish to know.
  6. Like I said, I don't think that it's incompatible to say that BBs are the most powerful ship type and yet still be underpowered. Battleships were immensely powerful ships, some much more so than is shown in this game.
  7. No, I said no such thing. I said that BBs are the most powerful type of surface ship. He said that they are OVER powered. Those are two completely different statements. I think that BBs are UNDER powered. BBs can be the most powerful type of surface ship and still be UNDER powered. Those are not two incompatible statements.
  8. Crucis

    players losing interest

    1. Enough with the "value proposition", "Toffler wave", "adaptive friction" crap. Speak in real language, not some sort of techno-speak for marketing geeks. Please. That entire second paragraph is so much gobbledy goop that it's all but impossible to decipher. 2. Carriers are as much tactical weapons as they might be strategic weapons. Also, I would argue that their combat power wasn't that much greater than BBs. It was the fact that the range of their weapons (i.e. their planes) made BBs obsolete. It's worth noting that USN BBs, after they'd received their early war AA refits, because vastly more difficult targets for carrier strikes, to the point that USN admirals actually would put their BB task groups between the enemy and their carrier task groups to tempt the Japanese into attacking the battleships. This was because those admirals had that much faith in the ability of their BBs (and their escorts) to defend themselves.
  9. No kidding. I'm not really sure what the OP is complaining about, because his post is so vague and unfocused.
  10. No, they're not. BBs are the most powerful type of surface combatant. It's ridiculous to think that it should be otherwise. Cruisers and destroyers should have to work hard if they want to take out a BB. And if anything, BBs are underpowered, because their secondaries are, for the most part, pathetic.
  11. Crucis

    players losing interest

    DAC, I'm with you (I think) on WG's backing down to the whiners when it comes to rebalancing OP premium ships. OTOH, I disagree with you profoundly about the CV rework. I hated the RTS CVs and really enjoy the FPS CVs (though they still needs some tweaking).
  12. Crucis

    players losing interest

    I'm with you, Sneaky. I had great difficulty understanding the OP's post, at least in detail. I got the gist of his overall tone, though. Sapi, I'm having considerable difficulty understanding the details of what you're saying. Still, don't take that has a harsh criticism. I'm sure that you're trying your best. On some many details, if I understand you correctly, I do not agree with you. I think that you want them to revert to the old RTS CVs, and I have to profoundly disagree with you on that. I hated the old RTS CV play style and greatly enjoy the new CV play style (even though it still needs some tweaking).
  13. Crucis

    French Destroyers announced

    The problem (apparently) isn't a lack of desire by the devs, but some sort of difficulty with the Italian naval archives. Be patient.
  14. Crucis

    French Destroyers announced

    I'd think later than that. The RN CVs will probably be released with the next update (next week?). Then the Russian BBs in about 2-3 months, I suppose. Then again, it does seem like it's possible that the Russian BBs could come out a smidge sooner than is normal for a 4 lines per year development cycle, since the RN CVs seem to be running a little late for that cycle, plus the RU BBs seem to be pretty far along. Still, I'm thinking that we'll see the French DDs in the August to September time frame. Hey, they might want to get them out in time for that German gaming convention in August, Gamescon. OTOH, they probably don't want to rush things and screw it up either.
  15. The Pan-Asians have that combo already with their pair of no so legendary commanders. And I'm assuming that WG is trying to make every national pair of these commanders different from other nation's pair of commanders, so it seems unlikely to me that the IJN's enhanced commanders would have the same pair of enhanced skills as the PA.
×