Jump to content

BBsquid

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    948
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3824
  • Clan

    [TF_34]

Community Reputation

249 Valued poster

About BBsquid

  • Rank
    Ensign
  • Birthday 07/22/1969
  • Insignia
    [TF_34]

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Honolulu, HI
  • Interests
    Surfing, Hiking (all good in Hawaii), and as much beach time as I can fit in a busy schedule. Avid gamer and historian. Firm believer that Star Trek is far superior to Star Wars, and all cats are better than most dogs. Whatevas.

Recent Profile Visitors

910 profile views
  1. This is probably the best post in this thread. o7, OoR!
  2. To this Im simply going to respond with the answer so many of the 'elite' players like to drop: Adapt, and git gud. I know plenty of phenomenal cruiser drivers that don't need to hide behind islands and do exceptionally well in 'squishy' cruisers. Am I one? Hahahaha. No. I suck at cruisers, way worse than my meh to average BB driving. Would it drive up the skill floor and ceiling? Almost assuredly, but challenge and improvement is what drives people. I would drive the small boys but 10 my physical disabilities limit my twitch skills required; 2) there are 11 other people playing they want to win as much as I do, and don't need a massive liability; 3) I served on the World's Finest battleship, and am rather fond of the type. This game is already so far from center that WG could easily alter gun parameters or armor on the squishies. This isnt a sim, its an arcade. With all the gimmicks the only thing about this game naval is the models.
  3. Don't get me wrong; Im not a computer coder or a game designer but it *seems* (and I could be very very wrong) that nerfing radar, or making it line of sight is the easiest fix. Or should be. My map option was a secondary fix. Anyone who has played this game for more than 5 mins knows this isnt a sim with all the [edited] gimmicks and whatnot. Having said that, if you dont want a naval combat arcade game, dont advertise it as one. Especially one based on 'history' as their advertising implies. Approaches? Yes...there were only so many avenues between those hard, rocky lumps in the middle of the ocean. On the other hand, Allied airpower was well aware of the IJN movements during SHO GO and during the Solomons campaign. Whether that intelligence was adequately interpreted and acted on is another matter altogether. In Iron bottom Sound there was plenty of sea room; you might want to get a compass and a protractor and measure the distance between Florida Island, Guadalcanal, and Savo. The battlefield wasn't dotted with dozens of pinnacles that obstructed line of sight (there was one-Savo Island). Surigao Straight is a fairly wide body of water, but its a srait...making it a natural choke point. Where exactly were terrain features an impediment to visibility? I would argue the IJN lookouts had no problems spotting Allied warships unless occluded by smoke or squalls. Islands certainly weren't a factor. For the USN, poor night training early war and temperamental radars made the early going a bit rough. Not islands. At no point were ships in danger of colliding with terrain.
  4. What? No Guadalcanal map? Im disappointed. Weak effort. You will, Im sure also note that, with the exception of Surigao Straits, the engagements were fought in open water. Samar, Halsey's Run to the North. San Bernadino was aviation heavy; there was no surface engagement when Kurita was making his approach. Savo, Cape Esperance, 1st and 2nd Guadalcanal, Tassfaronga, Kula Gulf all had land in proximity, but not to the scale we see on most of the maps in game. Keep them coming. I could be wrong but I can't think of a single battle in any theater that recreates what we have in game. Ocean, Solomons, Okinawa, and one or two others are *fairly* close
  5. Im not saying a purely open map like ocean only. Solomons , Okinawa, and a few others. Regardless of attracting new players, a single map would get REALLY old REALLY quick. Im saying that if you are going to make a naval combat game, arcade or sim, you might maybe want to make maps that reflect that genre. As I said, most of these maps seem to be either ports of WoT maps re-skinned, or so heavily influenced by WoT that this game IS WoT on water. Would it change the game? Probably. Would it kill the game? Probably not.
  6. Ummm...you'll note, I hope, that literally NONE of the examples you listed are naval surface combat games. Comparing those titles to WoWS, a surface naval combat arcade game is kinda stupid. If you want a shooter where you can play peek-a-boom, maybe those are more your speed?
  7. Growing as a Captain!

    Nothing wrong with letting others know you are improving. Nicely done btw. Keep on steaming! Now...just dont let that improvement go to your head and become one of those elitist stat shamers that think accomplishments in a video game somehow make them superior to others.
  8. Or if they waited just a minute or so to figure out where the radar ships are and letting the BBs and CA/CL's smite them before yoloing into caps and then crying about no support. *One day*...maybe one day they will realize they can give up a cap in the early going, as long as we have them mid to late game.
  9. ^^^^This. Exactly this. Or...get rid of the World of Tanks maps reskinned with water and make more maps like Ocean...ya know, the way naval battles are actually fought.
  10. Nothing wrong with Seattle; they are the favorite tasty snack for my Alabama, Massachusetts, and Iowa. In all seriousness, as some have said, maybe Seattle isn't your cup of tea. The ship can be a real PITA when played correctly, and server stats say she is doing fairly well.
  11. As its a WIP...I dont know. From the two vids Ive seen, in at least one it looks like guns will work if the sub is at PD? As I (probably incorrectly) understand it, oxygen is a consumable, so when they are out of oxygen they cant submerge(?). It wouold be importand to both limit the avail # of consumables, and manage said consumables like a boss.
  12. That would be an option, too. My concern is that, while WeeVee has been desired by the teeming, unwashed masses forever, there is a lot of salt in reaction to the dev blog. Rather than rage, maybe we can sell the 1944 WeeVee to WG through calm, rational discourse. Then again, maybe it doesnt matter what we do or say. Worth a crack though.
  13. Its not a question of what if the team has no DDs; the question is what happens when the DDs are farming damage (because its the only way to get decent XP for the type) at the expense of ASW work? 3 years in and Wg has yet to adequately reward DD play for the ancillary work they do...is ASW gonna be any different? What happens top DD play when DDs are getting hosed because they either get deleted by the sub(s) they are hunting, or get smoked by the red team whle hunting DDs? As few in this game seem to understand that naval ops were teamwork centric ops and not individual glory hunts, I cant see how you could really implement subs effectively...unless you restricted them to an Operation. Something along the lines of a convoy escort mission. Its bad enough we have a broken CV system in a surface warfare game. PROTIP: if enemy heavies are dropping gunfire, or DDs are making torp runs on your CV, something is very, very wrong. Ask the guys of Taffy 3. Like CVs, Subs really have no place in this game.
  14. So...I hate to possibly put the horse before the cart (as is the case with the WV in development) but I was bored and wanted to chime in. My main objective is a poll...created by someone more talented and with a little more time than I have at the moment. While WG *apparently* listens less to the playerbase than they used to (no confirmation), perhaps a graphical representation might catch their eye. I was thinking something along the lines of two questions: 1) how many would have any interest in buying a 1930s, pre-Pearl Harbor West Virginia? 2) How many would purchase a post Pearl Harbor, refitted West Virginia? More than likely it would accomplish very little; on the flip side, you miss every shot you don't take. Another angle might be to post non-trollish posts and flag Pigeon or Sub-Octavian and argue a well presented case. Said case might be strengthened by CC support. I for one, with the investment I have made in game am all about the longevity of the game. Not that a single premium ship is gonna make or break the bank, but I see a potential loss of revenue and wasted man hours (even if its just balancing and re-skinning Colorado A hull and recycling it). Sadly, whatever form she materializes in in-game, i will likely have to buy her...it is the West Virginia, and imnsho this is where the surrender ceremony should have taken place. Just an idea and maybe not a very good one...it is what it is.
  15. I wasnt going to, but I decided I had to say something here. 1st...as others have pointed out...you don't really have enough experience in the ship to make the comments you have. Give it some time; every ship plays a little different. I don't have her, nor do I plan to get her--i have no interest in fantasy Soviet wunderkin ships or weapons that would have likely failed miserably in practice (hint: the working pressures involved for MV that high would likely blow the gun up, or result in a service life per barrel so ridic it's not useful). Anyway...having played against her, I can say the guns hit hard when they do hit. Her armor is situational; catch her improperly angled and she's pretty squishy. Angled correctly she's a difficult nut to crack. Give her some time, and don't be overly aggressive. Russian bias and fantasy 9r not, shes not an instant "I win" button. Lastly...I suggest avoiding alienating CC's like @Lert. You made a non sensical post, he responded in kind. Fair is fair. If you alienate these players though you are simply depriving yourself of a valuable source of experience and advice. Good luck and happy hunting!
×