Jump to content

Jakob_Knight

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    1,251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5147
  • Clan

    [BWC]

Community Reputation

574 Excellent

About Jakob_Knight

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

427 profile views
  1. How do I turn off the taunt screen?

    What I find so revealing is how many people respond to a request to disable what is unquestioningly an end-of-game taunt ( or the previously existent text notification would have been enough for WG, and the emblem would not be magnified and placed dead center of the viewer's point of attention) with comments about 'manning up' or 'getting tough'. In days past, such behavior that espouses was called 'turning a blind eye', both because of the goal being to not let things that were wrong to bother oneself and the acknowledgement that such behavior was a sign of disability rather than strength. There really is no need for the emblems as implemented in the game except as a deliberate taunt mechanic, and WG is fully aware of this, which is why they do not allow you to disable it without using a third party mod. To WG, taunting is a virtue they wish to encourage among those who participate in their product lines, and the egoism of such people as who immediately utilize personal attack tactics to discredit any suggestion emblems be removed is exactly the kind of behavior they hope to see among the community. Bravo, WG. You have succeeded well.
  2. Hate to say it, but this has happened in every other split/rearrangement, and there's nothing new here. It didn't work when the IJN DDs were shuffled and split ( and they didn't even get a finished split line ), so I doubt it will be any different here. Just suck it up and pay the dabloons, or enjoy the new ships your commanders have been transferred to. After all, WG is not refunding dabloons for permanent camos but credits (which can't then be used to repurchase a permanent camo). The cost of repairing WG's actions are always on the player.
  3. Historical Ammunition Levels

    You forgot the chance to capsize if the ship turns too hard. Have to have realism, after all, and ballast was one of those pesky things to go once a ship had a hole or two where it wasn't built to have them.
  4. Come on WG really 0.7.5/0.7.6?

    What they will probably do is downtier the current line, introduce Buffalo and the T8 Cleveland, and wait until 0.7.6 to put in the rest of the alternate branch. This prevents a situation where players have purchased a ship but do not have the equivalent ship in their port, while also preventing anyone from progressing through the alternate line for a month or three. So, basically, you get to do the final testing on the nerfed USN cruisers and Buffalo while they continue to work on the majority of the new cruisers.
  5. Historical Ammunition Levels

    I believe that's as much for increased safety as for performance. Trying to launch or recover aircraft with a crosswind would be introducing random pushes to one side or the other as well as up or down, making a deck landing that much more of a challenge. Since most carrier ops happen out of direct engagement with the enemy, the CV has the time and area to set up the best conditions for their pilots, rather than having to inject more risk factors that needed. But yeah, lift is relative. A plane in a 120 MPH headwind would be able to stay in the air while hovering in exactly the same way it would travelling at 120 MPH with no wind whatsoever. Similarly, when the plane touches the deck, the speed it travels on-deck will be its own airspeed added or subtracted to by the speed of the Carrier, which will affect stopping distance.
  6. Historical Ammunition Levels

    The topic still comes up from time to time, usually by Battleship captains who can't stand having to dodge Destroyer torpedoes more than once in a battle. However, the cries for 'Historical Accuracy' go away immediately when it is pointed out that for historical accuracy to be applied in this fashion, Battleships would loose their ability to magically materialize new hull plating within minutes and it would take about five minutes (with time compression taken into account) for any Battleship to accelerate or decelerate. Other 'non-historical' aspects of the game would also take similar damage, leaving Battleships completely at the mercy of any CV (which could conduct the entire battle from off-board, safe from counter-attack by anything but another CV), while also unable to fire their main guns unless turned to the side (due to the damage their own muzzle blasts will do to both the structure of the ship and the barrels). 'Historical Accuracy' seems to only matter to the historians here if it gives them an advantage in the -game-. Makes you wonder alot about that crowd. edit- note that if this game was 'Historically Accurate', the first hits on a ship would leave it crippled or with many of its systems out of action. Really want that in this game?
  7. Best of the Best - Air Defense

    Depends on Tier, of course. And sometimes, the best AA ship isn't a Cruiser (such as the Nicholas with DF and the Texas at T5, both of which do the job better than any Cruiser at that Tier). However for Cruisers... T10: Des Moines T9: Baltimore (current, line change will change this) T8: None (New Orleans and Atago are my go-to Cruisers, but neither is good at pure AA work). T7: Atlanta T6: Cleveland (current. Line changes will change this to Aoba as the Pensacola simply is bad at almost everything, including AA) T5: None (no Cruiser has DF, and the Omaha was crippled by the AA changes years ago...The Texas and Nicholas are the AA ships here). T4: Yubari. T3: Katori (though really, that's only because it -has- AA guns). T2: AA? What's that? I'm supposed to be choosing a Cruiser for AA at T2? T1: Erie (Hey! I've got AAA! Where are the planes??)
  8. Asashio Broken

    To make what the above and other statements are illustrating a little clearer, here is a simplified example. Kagero A fires a brace of torpedoes. Because these torpedoes can hit any targets, she had launched against another DD that is contesting her cap. Five torpedoes hit, however only the first two are needed to sink the enemy DD. The damage stat will only record the damage those two torpedoes did up to the point the enemy HP reached zero. Any damage left over and the three other hits after those are not counted towards the Kagero's Damage stat, as they are ignored. By comparison, Asashio B unleases a brace of torpedoes at an enemy Battleship ( which she had engaged because she can't hit anything else). Five torpedoes hit. Because the BB has enormous HP pool, it takes all five torpedoes to take it to within a sliver of sinking. All five torpedoes count their damage towards the Damage stat of the Asashio, which ends up much higher than the total damage of the Kagero. End result is that the Kagero has left its target at the bottom and captured a cap, while the Asashio has only damaged its target and left it healing up. Yet, using the Damage stat, it would be concluded that the Asashio is the more effective and OP ship.
  9. Submarines

    "It's too late. You've awakened the Gazebo. It catches you and eats you."
  10. Quite so. And, while I acknowledge (as I have) that it is their game and their rules, I am not required to withhold criticism of their conduct in doing so when I find fault with it, as long as it is done within the bounds of the conduct rules of the forums. My issue is when someone infers that because someone is in a position of power, that their actions cannot be a violation of rules they themselves have set in place. They can, and I have provided the logical proof of that in this case. Just because you make the rules does not grant you immunity to them (quite the opposite for those with a sense of responsibility). Regardless, WG will do as they see fit, and I know nothing I say matters to them in the least. I will continue playing the game, with whatever tools to seek victory everyone else in the game has. But I will do so knowing I didn't accept conduct that I consider dishonorable to pass without comment or condone it based on who was doing it. My two cents. Take it or leave it.
  11. You may, of course, show me in the vanilla client where I can get the exact relative angle to a target instantaneously in order to decide when to fire. I will admit your point if you can illustrate that ability without using a mod. Or, perhaps you believe it is always possible to exactly know if your target is at 29 or 31 degrees in the standard client. If you can not do either of these beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, you have not stated a grounded argument, as the relative bearing indicator does so allow this to be done. In so doing it does, by definition, provide something that is not readily available to those without the mod, handicapping those players in a confrontation with someone in possession of this mod. If it is not in the unmodified client, then bringing in the picture of a piece of equipment that is not part of the game is simple deflection. You need to prove your case before I can accept it. And I am not mad at the modders because of some perceived loss of skill on my part (I will be just as skilled with these as I am without, all that will change is the tools I am allowed to honorably use). What makes me mad is the constant desire for modders to seek exceptions to fair play in order to get around facing their own limitations, and the hypocrisy of devs who say one thing then permit the opposite to occur. I hope you don't hold it against a congressman when they say they will protect your house then contract out bulldozers to level it to make way for the developers they used Eminent Domain to give your land to. They make the rules, but you have no problem when they violate their own rules. Got it. Sorry if I happen to believe everyone is accountable to the rules, regardless if the are a dev or a player.
  12. It would be just as enlightening to know how many of those who mod their game play on a 24" or larger monitor with a system that blows away what I'm using. I strongly believe the vast majority of people who use these mods do not do so from some perceived inferiority complex, but because the mods allow them to have even more advantages in the game. The hardware that the other users in the game are using is almost certainly a zero concern when choosing if you will use a relative angle indicator, since you'll need the resolution to use it that would let you see if the opposing ship is angled or broadside, and the only reason to use it is to avoid firing until you -know- you will not bounce your shot (for those still insisting this does not provide very powerful information those without the mod cannot get, I challenge them to correctly state the relative angle on five different targets 10 km away that are at either 29 or 31 degrees relative angle ten times in a row without fail through only the vanilla client. Choosing the right angle is the difference between a pen and a bounce). So, your argument falls apart, as it presumes modding is the result of a handicap, when it is, in fact, meant to induce a handicap on others.
  13. The fact that you believe the concept of cheating is completely dependent on what the Devs allow is a flawed idea. The technical term of 'cheating' is 'activity intended to circumvent rules or regulations in a structured, non-legal environment'. WOWS has no 'rules' as such, as it is a video environment, and so the 'rules' are what the game environment allows and the conditions of the interface permit. On that definition, any mod is a 'cheat', because it is circumventing the restrictions imposed by the basic client to allow the user of the mod to avoid conditions in the game that they don't like, without providing that same avoidance to the others in the game who do not mod their game. A conceptual term of 'cheating' would be 'any activity within a game or structured environment designed with the intent to provide the person taking the action with an advantage outside that possible within the normal operating conditions over those who do not take such actions and in contravention of the expected normal restrictions'. In this case, mods that have no impact on gameplay would not be cheating, but any mod designed to get around a restriction (i.e. smoke) or provide an advantage those without the mod do not have is cheating. The strict legal term of 'cheating' would be 'any action that breaks a specific rule or condition set forth and agreed to by all parties in a structured environment'. In this case, cheating would only be considered so if it directly went against a restriction put forth by the Devs to all in their game. In this case, no mod approved by the devs or mod not specifically prohibited by them would be cheating. However, any action taken by the Devs against their own rules or conditions they themselves have set up would still be considered cheating, even if they allow it because it breaks said rules or conditions, regardless of who was doing it. So. What do we have here? We have mods that are designed to circumvent restrictions in the normal (unmodded) client, which satisfies the technical term. We have those same mods providing tangible advantages to those using those mods that those in the normal client do not gain, so that satisfies the conceptual term. Lastly, the Devs themselves put out rules on what mods are acceptable, and one of those rules was that no mod that provided a gameplay (not strictly cosmetic) advantage to the user over those who do not use that mod would be acceptable. That satisfies the legal term, as they are violating their own established rules by allowing mods they stated they would not allow within their game, regardless of if they themselves are the ones allowing it or not. Thus, on all counts, this is cheating, and it doesn't matter who is approving it or not. The only difference is that the Devs can do it without penalty because there is no one with authority over them, so they can freely allow what they would normally ban others for and say they are right to do so. All because it's their game and they can do with it what they like. Their way or the highway. That in no way changes what they are doing. All it does is reinforce that they have a double-standard as a company, and if you can't handle it or accept it, tough. Go play something else, because their game, their rules (but not rules for them, only for you). In the words of a certain Captain on a WWII supply ship in a movie: "Never mind what I told you! I'm TELLING you!".
  14. So, what we have here is a statement that the devs acknowledge that these mods provide advantages to the players that use them, and so will be put into the game client at some point, and that players who don't use them should not protest that they are disadvantaged because A ) having a clear advantage when using something does not logically mean you are disadvantaged if you are not using it and B ) they are going to give them to everyone because this will remove the illegitimate reasons that do not exist that people keep bringing up. Added to this illogical and irrational statement, the Devs are adamantly opposed to putting in a mod that they themselves have approved for players to use with their full blessing and statements that it has no benefits to gameplay (which is why they will be adding an inferior version to re-balance gameplay for those who don't have it). I'm sorry, but this is incredibly nonsensical and smacks of people who have gotten caught in their own hypocrisy saying "Okay, we'll give everyone the same cheats and that won't make it a cheat, so we won't have been doing what we said was illegal in the game but were allowing anyway". No. All this does is prove conclusively that the Devs know exactly how much advantage the mods they approved to be used provide to those who use them. So much so that they feel they need to put some version of them in to preserve game balance. Though, apparently they won't ban the existing 'traffic lights' mod, even though they are adamant that players who don't mod their client should not have the same thing themselves. Utter double standard.
  15. You have to give some people some slack. They've only ever learned to spell via Reddit or Twitter.
×