Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

64 Good

About old_radagast

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

524 profile views
  1. old_radagast


    Agreed. The sad part about this is that it is completely unnecessary. I get that subs are cool and allow for a different type of game play - fair enough. But they are also an utterly miserable experience for the targets and any overworked DD who's stuck using whatever goofy ASW mechanics they create while being shelled, spotted, and expected to somehow cap and scout all at the same time. The solution is easy - put subs in missions only. Sure, some of them can be PvP missions with just subs and DD's, maybe protecting a fleet on one side (or both) of bots, such as merchant ships if you want to make this somewhat realistic. There - you have an interesting new game mode with PvP and PvE potential and you have subs. At the same time, the surface battles can continue as they currently are, which is generally functional. I'm just disappointed in what I see so far: the subs are clunky to use, most ships are nothing but targets against them if played well, and DD's, which are already overworked and underplayed, are expected to run around and chase these things. Ugh! I can see future game play consisting of everyone screaming at their DD's, getting torped by random subs, and then people just stop playing DD's - who needs the aggravation? - giving the subs more free reign until they get nerfed into oblivion. And none of this is necessary.
  2. old_radagast

    iChase showing some submarine gameplay

    That, and pointing out valid problems - as people are doing - is not "whining" as some seem to think. I'm really tired of that cop-out - can't address the issues, so they declare them "whining" as if that magically makes the facts go away, lol!
  3. old_radagast

    New information about how Submarines will work.

    True, but they may not care. Make subs overpowered, sell a bunch of them, then nerf them later. Heck, that's a classic model in many games. Or, just whatever it - "minimally viable" and all that. I agree with you completely - this looks awful with most of the fleet totally open to no counterplay attacks and totally dependent upon one of the lesser played and often most overworked classes to negate the threat. Ugh! As I said on another thread, subs could be made into something amazing in various mission-based game modes - hunt things down, dodge DD's, etc. Even some of those could be PvP, but only subs and DD's with bots to protect... because bots won't get frustrated if they are being torped to death and can't fight back. But mixing these stealth-firing monsters into normal PvP? Horrible idea that will probably happen anyway for reasons others have already stated.
  4. old_radagast

    iChase showing some submarine gameplay

    Underwhelmed. Looks like a complex mess of gameplay that, at its peak, produces more "firing from stealth / no counterplay" type encounters (enjoy more torps from nowhere!), but more likely just turns into teams screaming at their 2 DD's to somehow cap everything and kill 3 subs at once while being spotted by planes or something. Best case, the subs on both teams fail hard and die pointlessly, returning the game to some semblance of surface warfare. Worse case, one team's DD's can't work their confused magic, and the subs just turkey shoot everything to death in a "fun and engaging" no counterplay game. Ugh! I like the IDEA of subs, but not in random matches. They are perfect for missions of many flavors, but they really don't belong in the middle of a Jutland-style surface fleet smash up, and the mechanics, as shown, seem to be a pain for everyone involved. Subs are also, by their very design, not FUN for anyone who has to deal with them, more so than probably any other warship ever designed. That said, at least they ARE trying to test this and get feedback, which is a step in the right direction.
  5. old_radagast

    No subs please.

    If subs are added into the typical matches, I see no way to make them fun. They are literally all about "stealth firing," one of the concepts that WG (supposedly) dislikes, and which the player community (rightly) despises. Nobody likes being kicked around by an opponent who they cannot effectively fight back against - same reason that being slowly torn apart by a CV in a ship with lousy AAA is so boring and frustrating. Yes, yes - "git gud" and let's all huddle in a corner near whatever ship class will supposedly be "good at countering subs" and hope that some other random player on our team is up for that role. No, it's a lousy idea. Subs were not involved in fleet-level combat in actual warfare (yes, this is not a simulator, but you get my point), and they - by design - are not made for fun, engaging, or balanced encounters. Either the sub wins and ships just randomly explode all day from torp hits, or the sub makes a mistake and has zero chance of fighting back. Naturally, because WG would want the new class to succeed to sell things, they'll probably make them grossly overpowered. Now, if they want to add them for special missions or even some neat new game mode, where you stalk merchant convoys and warships, maybe against players, maybe against bots, sure, that can work because you've created a new, optional game mode that can handle them. But they have no place in our current ship vs. ship battles.
  6. old_radagast

    Are Russian BBs Over Powered at the moment?

    Could also be that's what most of the player base would like, too. Nobody is interested in playing a "historically accurate" surface ship in the late 1940's - aka a "target:" - which means the game you're proposing would quickly devolve into nothing but CV battles. That might be nice for some, but would be incredibly boring for most players. Fewer players = less money = no game. As for the RU BB's, I assume they'll be OP in same way based on classic "Russian Bias," but this game is still thankfully a far cry from the mess of World of Tanks, where casual deletions are common, as are situations where you basically can't do anything useful against the latest OP, Heavy, or whatever you happen to encounter unless you're also playing a top power level vehicle.
  7. Old thread, but still: This nutty bug has been in effect for a long time now - very annoying. I always have to remember to angle down slightly below the horizon when using spotter planes, or the dumb thing zooms out to infinity. This should have been fixed ages ago.
  8. old_radagast

    CV Rework Going Live early 2019

    Nope for several reasons: - If the lower tiers have trash balance, nobody is going to stick around to play to the higher tiers - Most players lose money at Tier 10 play, so it is not viable to balance the game only for a tier that you literally cannot play all the time anyway - Most players prefer middle tiers anyway, so that's where one should be balancing, not just at tier 10.
  9. It takes considerable effort to prove malice was involved in kill-stealing. I've sometimes fired the last shots on a doomed ship and gotten the kill; sometimes, I've apologized if it became clear a team-mate had committed more resources to the kill, such as firing a pile of torpedoes. That said, if I get a good shot, I'll take it unless I have time to think the situation through. On the other hand, I sometimes let clearly doomed ships die to a team-mate's hands vs. wasting slow-reloading weapons on them. I'll also try to let lower-tier allies get their kills if doing so doesn't risk the win since they probably need the XP more than I do if they are lower tier. Long story short, if you're not being an intentional jerk about it, you're probably not kill-stealing.
  10. old_radagast

    Premium Ship Review #114 - West Virginia 1941

    Wait... they want to improve the Repair Party function only on tech tree US BB's? So... the goal is to make the ones that cost real money inferior and less worth buying? Yeah... that makes sense?! Thanks for the very detailed review!
  11. old_radagast

    Increasing the punishment time for AFK players

    In the land of entitled, whiny gamers, yes, they actually do expect to punish you for real-life. How dare reality have a potentially negative impact on their K/D ratio in a stupid video game! Clearly, you must be punished! People are pathetic these days.
  12. old_radagast

    Increasing the punishment time for AFK players

    Not buying the notion of the OP "never having connectivity issues," and I'm tired of the response to those issues being "punish the victim." That, and quite frankly, given how awful so many players are, I seriously doubt the one AFK player on your team made the difference between victory and defeat anyway. It's just a game.
  13. old_radagast

    Alabama or Massachusetts??

    Taffy 3 turned back the entire Center Force. Was it partly a bluff? Yes. But they also successfully battered and blasted several Japanese warships. They didn't "get their you-know-what handed to them." When a few torpedoes can turn the mighty Yamato itself away from the fight, thus "mission killing" her for that specific battle, it is absurd to claim "DD's have no effect on surface combatants in actual warfare." Read the details - heck, the real-world DD's sound, if anything, MORE effective than how most of them are played in this game against surface shios: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar Also, the Fuso would like a word with you about the "ineffectiveness of DD's against surface ships." And none of this matters anyway since you're basically complaining that DD's can harm BB's in the game. Oh, no - all ships classes are useful! Why can't I just beat up the little ships for easy kills! Whatever.
  14. old_radagast

    Cheats AKA "Codes"

    Could be, and, as you correctly said, nobody should asking anyone to be banned for anything in chat unless it is some obvious and intentional violation of the game's terms of service. Things like spewing racism in chat while torping allies or some lunacy; thankfully, I haven't seen either of these in some months now, so that's something. The BB that just sat in one spot, repeatedly shooting the same dead ship... that one was even more baffling as to what it could have been, other than a horrible bot, but either way, it's up to the game company to deal with the bots, not the players to assume things and try to get people banned for disconnects, lag, etc.
  15. old_radagast

    Alabama or Massachusetts??

    Um, the entire battle of Leyte Gulf would like a word with you about that claim. The little DD's of Taffy 3 were, with the help of the Taffy 3 escort carriers, able to turn away Kurita's Center Force, with damage inflicted against that much larger force. Destroyer torpedoes also resulted in the destruction of the Japanese battleship Fuso in Surigao Straight. Note that these encounters where DD's were used with success against BB's are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head; I'm sure there are others. Finally, this is a game: why would anyone play a DD if they "stand no chance" against BB's? Who's going to volunteer to play the helpless cannon-fodder for the BB players? Yeesh...