Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

980 Excellent

About Maine_ARC_1

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Birthday 02/16/1999
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Mesa, Arizona

Recent Profile Visitors

5,833 profile views
  1. Maine_ARC_1

    ST, European destroyers

    Greece, Romania, Norway, Yugoslavia, Portugal, Finland, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, and the Netherlands say hello.
  2. Maine_ARC_1

    What in the ever living hell, WG?

    Amen! So many nations that could be added, but WG decided not to. Apparently many other nations don't exist.
  3. Maine_ARC_1

    What in the ever living hell, WG?

    Nations in the pan EU line now: Poland - 1 Austria-Hungary - 1 Netherlands - 1 Nations for the new tree: Poland - 1 Austria-Hungary - 1 Sweeden - 8 Nations after this line drops should it be as is: Poland - 2 Austria-Hungary - 2 Netherlands - 1 Sweeden - 8 Nations that are also in Europe that can get at least 1 DD but haven't: Greece Romania Norway Yugoslavia Portugal Finland Denmark Estonia Spain Countries in Europe that technically could get there own lines between ships from pre-WW1 to post-WW2, including gifts and paper: Poland Sweeden Spain Netherlands Countries already ingame who can still get more dd's: Poland Netherlands Austria-Hungary Wargaming has dropped the ball and fallen asleep at the wheel on this one. I am kinda mad they did this. There is so much content to pull from and they just dismiss it as if it doesn't exist. Rather sad if you ask me. @Lert Keep raising hell!
  4. Maine_ARC_1

    It's time for Wargaming to add battlecruiser trees.

    Right now CC's (that's the actual callout for a battlecruiser, as they are listed as "capital cruisers", the USN used CB for the alaska's however), are a good idea, but the problem is they caucus with either 2 classes, cruisers or battleships. Arguably within the scope that is this game, anything with either A, inherently adopted traits from both cruisers and battleships, B, is an anemic Battleship, C, is a cruiser on steroids, or D, is designed around being faster than a BB at the expense of armor and protection. For this reason, many ships can classify as cruisers if uptiered enough or battleships if down tiered enough. If you move Alaska a few tiers down you could call her a battleship, while if you moved Hood a few tiers up you could call her a cruiser. It all depends on the peers at that tier. Some of those ships could be placed in areas that classify them as other ships as far as this game is concerned. As a matter of fact, as far as the game is concerned, you could even classify Spee as a Battlecruiser due to her having 11 inch guns, despite having cruiser armor. "Pocket Battleship" isn't a technical term, but anything that is between a cruiser or battleship is generally in the area of being a battlecruiser. The same argument can pick apart anything near the callout of being a "battle cruiser". So many ships ingame would have to be reclassified or else be left alone, notably, premiums would be a touchy subject. MM would have to be assigned to them if made a separate class. Do they get to be different, or do they get to be fill-ins for being down a cruiser or a battleship due to intermediate capability? Would you even be able to consider some ships who were battlecruisers a battlecruiser with the balancing they have received? A lot of ships get to go down that slippery slope of what they get, or even if they do, relabled, and if so then how? If one nation has CC's that are smaller than others, do they just get lumped in with the "large cruisers" and become a cruiser or get a different classification? I am mostly spitballing with the 2 paragraphs above, but I would just like to point out that a lot comes into view with a new ingame class of ship. The reason we are getting subs and the fact we still have CV's is for the sole reason of having content to create for the game, it's that simple. Yes, you can have a lot with what already exists, but that only goes so far. In general, ships are expensive to produce, and not a lot of countries get ships, let alone a number of workable designs. In terms of content diversity, subs are coming, CV's are here to stay, but even then those 2 will only bring so much to the table before we see long stints of just paper ships being added because the game itself has nothing left from built-in-steel ships to draw from. For that reason, battlecruisers as a general concept would be in my opinion worth a shot, as more options for gameplay would be nice and fortify surface ships as having 4 dominate classes in-game. However how they fit in would be a challenge.
  5. Maine_ARC_1

    CV Rehabilitation Clinic

    Some of us play all 4 classes because we actually enjoy all 4 classes. Sorry for party rockin'.
  6. Maine_ARC_1

    Why the MM changes aren't what you want.

    And once again there communication models is what makes me believe some of this isn't the case. I would be surprised if this was the case where all of it is an entirely new feature.
  7. WG is going with the "throw as many money nets out as possible" approach rather than the "let's make a great game that people will inherently want to spend money on because it is good" approach. It's showing more and more each patch.
  8. Maine_ARC_1

    Why the MM changes aren't what you want.

    As I said myself I hope I am wrong also. But vague announcements and unthought out plans lead to red flags on my end here.
  9. Maine_ARC_1

    Why the MM changes aren't what you want.

    Exactly. Another mathematical formula with RNG everywhere because EVERYONE LOVES DICE ROLLS!!! /s
  10. Maine_ARC_1

    Why the MM changes aren't what you want.

    No, I actually don't want MM replaced at all. HOWEVER, I am capable of sharing the sandbox with others. If others want a MM change to make it more comfortable, I am fine with that as a friendly compromise. At the same time, I don't think people should be screwed over in the process of finding a compromise to the situation. +/-1 MM would be a much more simple and reasonable change than putting in some crazy math system that can actually allow people to abuse MM. I'd agree that some of the banter out of the whole is whining. However, as I said, I am willing to share the sandbox with others. As long as my ship still moves and shoots I am just fine.
  11. Maine_ARC_1

    Why the MM changes aren't what you want.

    I don't think you understand where I am coming from with this, settle down buddy. I am not saying that fixing it is not ok, what I am saying that this perticular system is not a good solution to the problem. I never said that the problem shouldn't be remedied.
  12. Maine_ARC_1

    Why the MM changes aren't what you want.

    You are correct. The MM can only make matches with what is has to make matches with.
  13. Maine_ARC_1

    Why the MM changes aren't what you want.

    Apologies, I mistyped what I intended to say. Thank you for correcting me. It still is alot of data to hold per person. Maybe it has a cap of the last 100 battles with a 20 battle max trigger? Who knows! The system just isn't worded clearly. I know you said you find it straight forward but this system just seems like it has alot of room for a fast one to get pulled since it just seems so vague. Sorry but I have learned to trust patch-day notes over anything is initially written but to raise alarm to anything but patch-day notes as I can't change the release being downloaded to my PC.
  14. Maine_ARC_1

    Why the MM changes aren't what you want.

    The problem I have with that is the announcement doesn't tell how the data is handled or stored. WG doesn't normally talk about how their servers actually work unless it was a major issue or what-not. Remember, you have to save data per ship per person per game mode. That can add up really quickly. If WG has to store say, a GB of info per person 14k people means 14TB of info. Server space can get really expensive. I don't think WG wants to bust out money for a server upgrade just to handle a MM system.