Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

21 Neutral

About Jack_Stewart

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Birthday 01/15/1990
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    USA, Vermont

Recent Profile Visitors

636 profile views
  1. Jack_Stewart

    USS Phoenix

    My understanding is that the Phoenix in game is a blueprint/prototype for the Omaha Class, and that the (1916) Phoenix class was never built.
  2. Yeah, that's some weaksauce.
  3. Jack_Stewart

    TL:DR - Research Bureau

    We all KNEW this was the real reason for the NTC/RB project.
  4. Jack_Stewart

    TL:DR - Research Bureau

    No. A quick application of search-fu through the threads for the "Naval Training Center" will reveal why this is a HORRIBLE idea.
  5. Jack_Stewart

    Sometimes the bear eats you...

    It always feels nice being on top of the scoreboard when you're bottom tier, doesn't it? Congrats!
  6. Jack_Stewart

    TL:DR - Research Bureau

    Ok, since you're determined to put words into my mouth, let me spell it out. My point wasn't, "they could have spent the money over there and then it would be done," it was, "why are you continuing to throw money into a garbage-fire the community doesn't want!?"
  7. Jack_Stewart

    TL:DR - Research Bureau

    You're still not getting it. The community has LOUDLY said that the NTC/RB is NOT something they want, yet WG is shoving it down our throats. I've never said there aren't teams working on those other issues, it's not an all or nothing proposition. What I'm trying to say is this; the community has made their stance on the NTC/RB clear, they've also made the list of things they want to see fixed clear. Rather than putting ANY resources into things the majority of the community does not want, put it into the problems the game has. TL;DR: The way WG is handling this, gives the impression that there is a disconnect between the company and their customers.
  8. Jack_Stewart

    TL:DR - Research Bureau

    If you read my entire response, I wasn't talking about AA & the MM algorithm, but where CV's fit in the meta and MM in terms of fun and enjoyment, I.e. maps/ game modes. But even if they get those two things fixed, there are still a myriad of other things that need work, such as Radar and its ability to spot through solid objects. It's not like there are only two things that need to get fixed, there are two things that REALLY need to be fixed, before the game is healthy again, IMO.
  9. Jack_Stewart

    TL:DR - Research Bureau

    To make a very long argument short, WoWs has some serious issues right now, the short list IMHO would be: CV's & matchmaking. These seem to be things that could use major work and are the source of a LOT of complaints on the forums. Instead, WG keeps coming up with new gimmicks and new 'resources' to collect, rather than making a functional, stable, fun game. Do any of you remember that fun is (supposed to be) the reason we're playing this game? Rather than making new maps and game modes to enjoy, they keep pushing that CV rework, trading one set of issues for another. Rather than fix their mistakes and actually make CV's work in the meta of the game, they decide they're going to add submarines. It's not petty, it's practical. WG, let's get the game back to a state where we're having fun and not just inflating the (new) player base, but retaining the players who come try out the game? A good FTP game lives and dies on player retention, and right now, it doesn't look like WG gives a flying [expletive deleted].
  10. Jack_Stewart

    Some thoughts on balancing submarines

    10. Subs need to surface to fire (accurately).
  11. Jack_Stewart

    What is this NONSENSE that WG Insists on Doing?

    I can speak from experience that most of my (small) clan - all of which are close friends out of game - have quit thanks to the MM. The other quit because they were a CV driver and didn't like the change. Hell, I took a ~6 month hiatus from the game earlier this year for exactly that reason.
  12. Jack_Stewart

    when things really fall apart fast

  13. Jack_Stewart

    Worst Premium ship in game

    Marblehead, hands down. I put her commander back in Omaha, she's that bad. It's hard enough playing her at tier 5, forget about tier 6 & 7. Honestly, the only games I've had any luck with Marblehead was in tier 4 games. What's bad about her? the better question is, what's good about her? Useless AA, (seemingly) weaker armor scheme, crap torps, lackluster guns... This is coming from a player who absolutely loves Murmansk, despite the fact that power-creep hasn't done her any favors - fires for days!
  14. While I didn't watch said stream, the fact that they don't want to implement these changes because it removes counter-play (the risk to the cruisers) IMO, is part of the problem. There has to be a happy medium somewhere in here, where DD's have risks to making torp-runs, but so do cruisers in hunting them - even if that risk comes from no longer island-camping, which IMO is another problem.