Jump to content

_RC1138

Members
  • Content Сount

    4,118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [5BS]

Community Reputation

1,294 Superb

2 Followers

About _RC1138

  • Rank
    Captain
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,056 profile views
  1. You can always do any Op in the rotation if you form a Division up, which is likely what this is aimed at. However, I think it *is* silly that once again WGing splits up the communities desires; you put out these fun new-ish (once a year) Operations, AND at the same time run an event with rewards, but forces you to choose to do one or the other. This was the key thing wrong with the new mode they just took out; you had to choose between it or Randoms where you could advance missions and reward campaigns. Instead of that, allow both so that players don't feel (right or wrong, that IS how most players will feel) penalized for not choosing one mode or the other.
  2. This is a hopelessly naive comment on the workings of big business. Let's be 100%, unambiguously clear, *they are trying to [edited] you*. That is their *goal.* Every one, including me and my ships, are trying to screw the consumer. That's what we do. Everything we do is to take YOUR money away from you and put them in our pile, at an ever increasing volume and rate, while at the same time doing less and less for you. This is not a debatable thing, this is a FACT that anyone at any level of operations in a manufacturer can tell you. Maybe you try to [edited] the customer nicely, but it's a [edited]all the same. And the only thing that reins that in are hard stops. True duds. 0% purchase. And 100 years ago, simply saying, "I won't buy it," was enough, but now, where markets can represents shares of the population of the PLANET, that attitude doesn't work because you can still [edited] ENOUGH people across that wide market to turn a huge profit. And the problem is, yes, maybe *this* predatory business practice you can resist/doesn't effect you, *OTHER* ones that are borne of it CAN AND WILL. Think of the Financial Crisis of 2008. I didn't have a Sub-Prime Mortgage. You (probably) didn't have a sub-prime mortgage. But the fact that ENOUGH someones *did* had a DIRE effect on both YOURS AND MINE earning potentials over the last decade. No man is an island anymore and bad business practices on a low level can and will turn into BIGGER problems later. Practices like this are setting up for a gaming industry for a fall, and I know most of you are too young to remember the industry crash in the 80's, but this kind of stuff (same coat of paint double dipping) is *precisely* what did it.
  3. _RC1138

    NHL 19 doesn't have Admiral Halsey!

    Because one game's developers have a sense of humor and the other's don't.
  4. Except it isn't common sense, it's deliberately limiting the view. Anything that has been regulated anywhere, be them cars, guns, drugs and drink, boats, explosives, anything, can be stated to be, 'If you don't like it, don't buy it.' People have strong views against the push for 'all natural' and 'organic foods.' If you don't like it, don't buy it. Some people looking at *my* industry, don't like the fuel inefficiency of bulk/LNG/Container carriers. If you don't like it, don't buy it (or products moved by them). The *problem* with this view is that it assumes these are 100% isolated systems that do not interact and/or effect larger things. Selling the same thing with a new coat of paint is just 1 example of predatory business practices. You want another example? On Disc DLC. You don't like it, don't buy it, right? Well no, because there is a line and that's way over it. But people TOLERATED that way more than they did and if the games' industry (and others) have shown anything, if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. So sure, you don't like them selling black camo versions of ships many people already had, clearly trying to double dip the market (instead of selling appropriately priced cosmetic items, which, you know, there is no logical or technological reason for them not do OTHER than greed), you don't buy it. But by them doing so, SOMEONE will, because a new sucker is borne every second, and it just teaches them to do more. So later, when you see 5 different versions of the same ship being released with 3 different sets of things you like and no way to combine them, do not complain because THIS is where those ideas gestate.
  5. To say nothing of the fact that the recent closures of major game's developers (now most recently and outstandingly, Telltale) that profitability has nothing to do with 95% of their employees getting paid a living wage, benefits, or severance pay when their job is torne out from under the feet, and that increasing profit margins in this industry just adds and extra % bonus to the top Executive staff. When you buy stuff like this, you're not helping keep the developers in jobs/homes, you're buying the chief executive a bigger pool.
  6. Selling weapons and killing people under contract pays the bills per unit sale better than almost any other industry/time investment but that doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. Predatory business practices which this is *squarely* one (selling people the same thing with a new coat of paint, LITERALLY) are something people get hot and bothered about for a reason and defending it when you yourself do not profit monetarily from it is borderline [edited] behavior.
  7. What do you think the word 'soft' in 'soft' cap means? A 'hard' cap would mean it can *never* exceed 'x' number of ships, a soft cap means, it can never exceed 'x' number of ships UNLESS certain criteria are met (in this case, >= a few minute wait for queue).
  8. That's what CL's are for and why all this hoo haa over a crappy Standard Type is kinda funny.
  9. Subs are more interesting than CV and likely to represent a greater money maker (direct combat (and ninja-y at that) vs. always indirect (even their proposed change is still a WoWP mini-game)) due to the sheer vastness of random, crazy sub designs out there. Likewise they already HAVE underwater dimensions on most maps as 1: you don't need a 'bottom' as most subs could not hit bottom anyway due to limit crush depths and 2: good old camera angle trickery can disallow looking straight down and 3: hide it in a dark haze. It's really just shore lines that need to be rendered and most are already, just minor extensions in a few cases then sheer drops. Additionally, from an Engineering standpoint, there's the old, "If you're buying the front lawn, might as well buy the house," ethos. If they are already planning on totally reworking how CV's work, and to a degree how EVERY other ship works due to AA changes, it stands to reason that, that would be a GREAT opportunity (kinda once in a game's life span) TO ALSO rework a other classes in a variety of ways. So, as I've said elsewhere, it is not hard to see that DD gameplay will be shifted more into a support role, with SS/SF's taking the ninja, sneaky, ambush-y playstyle over. This could clue back in to the CV rework well and I would be surprised if they don't try to time both as an overhall as a 1.0 Release.
  10. Long range harassment. There's no range where it's 'safe' or 'fun' to take damage, the difference is between being peppered constantly at long range or moving in to even the odds. Plus, and I cannot stress this enough, 100% dedication to historicallity went out the window the second we gave DD"s unlimited torps on a 2-3 minute reload, radar that works temporarily, secondary guns that magically suck when mounted on a *higher* more stable BB or CA but become acceptable when on a DD or CL hull.
  11. By making sniping ineffective; drop the top off of BB accuracy at long range and increase it at the bottom of short range. Now BB's *have* to move forward to hit anything. Add to that removal of Citadels and now BB's *have* to move forward to do damage. If they get nice and close, they land 12/12 9/9 8/8 shells, and still can do huge amounts of damage, but they have to get close to do so, or, they can sit at 18+ km and maybe land 1 shell, that only does 3000 damage.
  12. They have tried *far* from everything. My solution has yet to be attempted and I *still* hold true that it will work: Remove citadels as a damage zone and instead make a citadel a *guaranteed*, non-mitagatable (no Last Stand help) engine and/or gun and/or rudder knock out. 33% Pens become the heaviest damaging pen Reduce Torp damage a bit (say -15% of what they are currently), raise flooding chance to near 100% on the *worst* torps, reduce flooding damage to be comparable to 1.5 fires in total damage applied, and drop across the board torp reloads by ~25% and increase launcher survivability a bit. Slightly reduce accuracy of BB armament at ranges >= 60% of their max range. Slightly increase accuracy of BB armament at ranges <= 35% their max range. Give *every* ship a heal, with 'current' healers with just better versions of heal (be it stronger, or faster, or more charges or faster reloading). Also increase the amount of torp damage heals can heal (it's what? 10% now. Make it 25%). Now you have tanks that can act like tanks, and are encouraged to move forward because a) They can't really hit as much at max range b) what few shells connect at that long range are going to do FAR less damage or useful damage (who cares if you kill an Enemy BB's engines when that Enemy BB is all the way back at his spawn?) and c) reduce BB's as a DPS class in favor of a tank class that applies debuffs (Engine kills, rudder kills, battery kills) so that the *actual* DPS classes can then focus damage. As a potential additional change, flip the shell elipses 90 degrees so most shells fall long or short of the aim point, as opposed laterally. It's both more realistic, and can encourage a greater degree of broadside combat.
  13. It's pretty evident that there's a high degree of 'what sticks' mentality to their development process and a rather wide disconnect between their (stated) wants, and actions. They want BB population both a tad lower *and* more aggressive. Making BB's more bow tank, snipe friendly has the opposite effect on both, as increasing the necessity to bow tank makes them that much more dangerous to cruisers that dare to enter the middle space between lines, reducing cruiser numbers (who will typically switch to BB"s over DD's) and likewise their aggression going down makes the overall game more static. If they want WoWs to be a tower defense game, then they are hitting that bullseye square on, but if they are aiming for a more dynamic game, like they claim to be, this change is not likely to facilitate that. The braver BB's are, the better the game is. How you get them to be brave is up to debate but their movement more or less determines the movement of everything else.
  14. Ha, one more reason those USN Internal belts were borderline [edited].
  15. Look I'm no USN Fanboy, as most can tell, but credit where credit is due, it was *far* from USN CV's or surface fleets that made the war winable against the IJN. By a huge margin it was the USN and RN Submarines that basically made controlling the Pacific neigh impossible, especially with how piss-poor IJN ASW was for the vast majority of the conflict. Even without surface ships to distract Destroyers, the IJN did not have either effective ASW tactics nor effective ASW Weaponry. And add to this that within *hours* of the Attack of Pearl harbor, USN Submarines were already at sea, on station, doing their job, it is *not* unfair to say that it was Subs that were the spear point for much of the war.
×