Jump to content

FirestormMk3

Members
  • Content Сount

    527
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4672
  • Clan

    [RLGN]

Community Reputation

154 Valued poster

1 Follower

About FirestormMk3

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

315 profile views
  1. Me and @MediumRare both do, though in his case (and perhaps mine too) not as much as yourself. I more or less stopped though once I knew this was coming (even before we knew what the rework would look like oh so many months ago). If this poll was a year ago I would have certainly voted that they added to my enjoyment.
  2. Not really worth voting in now until the rework goes live.
  3. FirestormMk3

    So the USA still uses a German war booty ship

    Wow, cool information OP!
  4. There are always apologists who will argue that companies have every right to exploit people in any way they can come up with and it's the fault of consumers who are hurt by it. I've never understood the mentality and you see it everywhere in the game industry, but I've seen the argument used to defend on-disc "DLC," P2W schemes, loot boxes, DRM that outright hurts the gaming experience, and more. Logic is no part of it.
  5. I agree that things get adjusted in the game. I also don't know how many times I need to repeat myself, because as I've already said here *I* don't actually want a refund for this. I acknowledge that WG doesn't *have* to offer any of the refunds, for premium ships or otherwise, with the upcoming carrier rework. I acknowledge they didn't *have* to offer doubloons for the Belfast. But they are, did, and should. If a premium ship has to be changed or removed (and frankly for ships like the Nikolai they should have changed or removed it rather than left it as a P2W ship only acquired through gambling) then a refund option should be there. I don't know if I haven't been clear on this point or not either, but I am NOT saying people should be allowed to get money back for these ships either - but they SHOULD be allowed to bail and get their FXP back, and I don't understand why others having that option seems to offend other people like me who wouldn't take it. Frankly when people say "well you choose to buy it, it's on you" then they should understand the point of view that if they can retroactively change it I don't ever want to choose to buy any of these things again. I mean, taken to its full extent you could argue "well there are events where you can ear doubloons in game, so ships paid for with doubloons should never have the option of a refund" and if you feel that way I plain frankly disagree and personally think it's a bad business model in the long run. Now in another one of these threads we had a mod make it clear they haven't 100% decided to go ahead with these changes and I'm not "butthurt" over it because not only might it not happen, I personally don't think it's a bad change nor would I take advantage of a refund offer, but they really should offer it if they DO go ahead with it.
  6. To be clear, like I stated in my first post, *I* don't actually want a refund for this. I also recognize they don't *have* to give one. I am saying the option should exist. They don't *have* to give refund options for the carrier rework. They didn't *have* to offer a refund for the Belfast. They'd have been foolish if in either case they didn't.
  7. Good, thank you for clearing that fact up. While I personally am not against this change and wouldn't ditch my Kron over it I do agree with those that say a refund option is in order if it goes through. It is unquestionably a specific nerf for these premium ships and like with the Belfast or upcoming carrier rework you should be allowed to refund for the in-game currency used to buy it.
  8. This is true, but the issue is not that - these FXP ships are a big motivation to get people to spend money to convert XP to FXP (a statement that wasn't controversial UNTIL this fire change discussion came up). People did spend money for these ships. I'm not saying they should get money credited to their account, but they should be able to refund for the FXP used to buy the ship and honestly I'm pretty reluctant to every buy a premium ship again (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) if they do nerf once WITHOUT a refund option.
  9. I'm sorry, but FXP conversion for doubloons and the new paid steel campaign make this false. This change doesn't make me want to ditch the Kron but it is a major change and they should offer a refund on this. It's a terrible precedent at that and makes people lose confidence that premium ships won't be nerfed in the future. Whether you support this change and whether it would make you want that refund doesn't change the fact that they should offer it.
  10. FirestormMk3

    Should WG go forward with the CV rework?

    This hyperbole has come up way too often and at this point I only have the energy for the short rebuttle: the rework could not in any real serious context be called a flight sim and the gameplay similarities between in and WoWp start and end with "there are planes."
  11. FirestormMk3

    Should WG go forward with the CV rework?

    Yeah, round one of TST AA was a joke, but I think that was intentional to test the proof-of-concept without making it too tough to try out. I am confident they can work towards a good balance in time, I mean I'm sure you remember how AA was in TST 2 @Palladia where even a destroyer could shred a squadron. There will always be the type that think anything that changes the meta is always the sky falling but those that can adapt will soon see that this isn't gonna kill the game any more than radar did. I even think radar could use some tweaking myself (like requiring line of sight so it can't go through islands for instance) but it certainly hasn't killed the game.
  12. FirestormMk3

    So many do NOT want the CV rework.

    There wasn't really a good way to completely change the playstyle of carriers without changing AA as well, considering AA only works well with the current playstyle.
  13. FirestormMk3

    So many do NOT want the CV rework.

    Yeah, round 2 of TST had gone too far the other way, where destroyers with no modules nor captain skills could shred squadrons, let alone bigger ships. I honestly wish with the every-other-tier system of new carriers they'd use that as an opportunity to narrow the carrier matchmaking spread to limit tier overlap and allow for more precise AA balancing. Something like: Langley: 3-4 Ranger: 5-6 Lexington: 7-8 Midway: 9-10 It stops cross tier CVs from meeting which would always be a 2-tier difference and allows tier 10 AA to be balance for tier 10 planes without worrying about what that does to a tier 8 carrier.
  14. FirestormMk3

    Should WG go forward with the CV rework?

    Yeah it's pretty easy to see which people are arguing in good faith. If you look through the official rework thread that got unpinned you'll see quite a few repeat names of both kinds - those talking about actual tweaks that needed to be made (a lot of which were addressed quickly between TST instances which gives me some hope about other issues being quickly addressed between PTS and live) and those just yelling the same thing over and over: "I hate the concept of this rework therefore it'll kill the game" or "This change is something other than the complete removal of carriers therefore it'll kill the game." One gets in the way of making this change the best version of what it can be and the other actively hinders it. After the final instance of TST I walked away with a few concerns but was surprised how quickly it had evolved and it made me more confident rather than less that it'll be further improved.
  15. FirestormMk3

    Dynamo Schnellboot kill records

    Oooh, nice job guys, I think 17 is the best I've done!
×