Jump to content

Captain_Benevolent_Fair

Supertester
  • Content Сount

    492
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    15700
  • Clan

    [STAR]

Community Reputation

240 Valued poster

1 Follower

About Captain_Benevolent_Fair

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    São Paulo, SP

Recent Profile Visitors

2,525 profile views
  1. Captain_Benevolent_Fair

    Cruzador Weimar tem que ser banido da OP. Narai

    Nas palavras fictícias de Edgeworth: "You're not the Clown, you're the entire Circus." @A_Galvs, adiciona na lista de razões pra colocar o emote do Edgeworth no servidor.
  2. Captain_Benevolent_Fair

    XP de Navios T10 e Premio

    XP de navio T10, assim como de qualquer navio premium ou de linha cujo todos os módulos tenham sido pesquisados, é considerada XP de elite e pode ser convertida em XP livre com dobrões. A maioria das pessoas nunca vai converter todo o XP desses navios em XP livre, mas o XP vai estar lá como opção se precisarem. Por mais que não faça total sentido acumular XP que nunca vai utilizar, nenhum ser humano normal está perdendo o sono porque tem muito XP sobrando. Para muitos, o XP acumulado em um navio serve como exemplo da experiência que o jogador tem com o navio, então pelo menos uma utilidade ele tem, enquanto que a remoção de todo o XP não serve propósito nenhum. Mas se odeia tanto ter um número em baixo do nome do seu navio, existem duas soluções: 1 - Se for navio de linha, resete a linha, todo o XP vai pro T1, que ninguém joga. 2 - Se for premium, navio tier 1 ou super navio, abre a sua carteira, compre quantos dobrões precisar para converter todo o XP de elite em XP livre, use esse XP livre para ficar resetando a linha do Harugumo e ganhar pontos de pesquisa, compre tudo o que quiser no Research Bureau, e pare de incomodar o suporte com pedidos dignos de virar meme. Temos problemas de verdade precisando ser resolvidos.
  3. Captain_Benevolent_Fair

    Navio Brasileiro Atlântico, bandeira errada?

    Vou adicionar aos comentários do Brooklin, os enfeites da camuflagem do Atlântico não apenas são inofensivos à MB e sua história, como são baseados em adornos reais utilizados pela MB: O nome "Atlântico" é a única parte dessa história que não condiz com os padrões da MB antes de 2018. No que diz respeito a parte artística, a WG fez um ótimo trabalho com as camuflagens e o visual do navio (apesar de ter tomado muitas liberdades ao misturar 3 projetos diferentes).
  4. Captain_Benevolent_Fair

    [ALL] Neko_Sherman

    You did it. You mad Man, you did it.
  5. Captain_Benevolent_Fair

    O Estaleiro de Clydebank: construção do Marlborough

    Navio de Dockyard não costuma voltar depois que o evento acaba, e o Marlborough é um ótimo navio, então se estiver com dinheiro sobrando, é uma boa compra.
  6. Captain_Benevolent_Fair

    Como seria uma Árvore Brasileira no WoWs?

    A razão é bem simples, os projetos são exclusivos do Brasil, os navios reais mencionados, não. É a mesma razão pela qual a linha de DDs italianos tem projetos nos tiers 8 e 9, mesmo a Itália tendo tido Fletchers. Não faltam nações com navios dessas classes, algumas só têm navios dessas classes. No propósito de dar a cada nação sua devida representação no jogo, o uso desnecessário de navios dessas classes em nações que têm outras alternativas viáveis resultaria em vários navios iguais tendo que ser diferenciados puramente através de gimmicks, o que ocorreria em detrimento da qualidade e variedade do jogo. Além disso, o foco desnecessário nessas classes tiraria o foco do nosso potencial, evidenciado por esses projetos que para muitos são pouco conhecidos, mas muito mais interessantes. Também é importante considerar que a repetição desnecessária dessas classes traz uma visão negativa do exterior, a de que uma nação não é "digna" de ter suas próprias linhas quando os navios que a compõem são de segunda mão e só estão lá porque as nações mais relevantes não tinham nada melhor pra fazer com eles do que vender pra quem quisesse comprar.
  7. Well, then. Let us have a thorough analysis of the statement, shall we? So, first we have some clever wording. "Discussed some of them internally", where "some" is vague and could mean anything from "one" to "all except one", and given the sheer amount of options provided, it's hardly a meaningful start for this response, just good old "we listened to your feedback, then turned on the ol' reliable paper shredder". Thanks for the honesty I guess, since this is exactly what I assumed to be the reason for this horrendous choice in my original post, though since I'm not the one pretending to have a good reason for it, I didn't embellish the truth with words like "eclectic choice" and "an homage". The reality can be much more simply described by the words "the people paying 35k doubloons for this tier VIII premium ship don't know nor care about history, so we picked a name fresh on their minds rather than one that follows any reasonable standard". Bit strange to be that upfront about the belief that the majority of your playerbase is too unenlightened to know better, but then again, you do internally refer to them as... what was it? "Plain..." something? "An homage to the modern Brazilian Navy", guess the old Brazilian Navy who forged their history through many naval conflicts in the 19th century and fought and bled in two World Wars was not as worthy of an homage then, not to mention, we have other important names in our modern Navy that actually have history behind them, many of which I suggested (See: "Niterói-class frigates", "Humaitá", "Tonelero" and "Angostura"), so you definitely had other modern options fresh on your unenlightened target audience's minds to choose from, though given the quickness of this response I'm not sure if you'd even have time to give that information the proper attention, I just have to believe that in less than 3 days WG has thoroughly analysed over 30 different options that took me over a month to research properly, and then formulated a public response just in time for dinner on the third day. "There is no clear consensus on what alternative name would be best" Okay, now I am seriously wondering if the original post was even read, let alone analysed. There is the very clear consensus that the ideal alternative would be the name of a Brazilian State, primarily those with historical or economic significance, or a historically relevant battle for the Brazilian Navy, primarily from the Paraguayan War. Unless of course this is another clever wording, with the underlying message being that "there are too many good alternatives, and we're just so overwhelmed with choices we couldn't pick just one, and since that technically means there was no consensus, we just decided to not do anything". I also can't shake the fact that you said that many of the suggestions have issues of their own, yet put absolutely no effort to show why, otherwise known as proving your argument. If you did, and did it well, you may have properly justified the final decision with something more meaningful than "our target audience has more money than sense". Of course, that would lead back to my two previous paragraphs, 30 names being analysed in under 3 days, and a clear statement as to why each of them can't be used being issued. A difficult task, certainly, but what's a little extra effort when trying to provide a reasonable response? I put that effort, and I'm not even being paid to represent a billion dollar company, all I had was passion and respect for my country's naval history. And besides, we do have a battleship in the game named after Vladimir Lenin, so I really wonder what issues the names I suggested would have that would compare to one of the minds behind the Red Terror. But I thought you just said that "many of them have issues of their own" as a reason why they wouldn't be used, yet now you're happy to keep them to use for future ships? Truth be told, nearly every name used by the Brazilian Navy was not class restricted, and would go from being used in a small monitor to a destroyer and then to a capital ship, so this is pretty hollow as a statement. That they apply across ship classes only serves to strengthen my arguments as to why they are better and more reasonable alternatives. When last used by you, the word "consider" was quickly translated to "no", so I'll believe when I see it, though you've added so many pre-requirements for a public voting to happen, all of which depends on WG feeling like doing it. Every ship has multiple shortlisted name choices in real life, so any ship that wasn't historically named (meaning most paper ships) would've had multiple name alternatives historically, to put that as a requirement is pointless because WG is the one who'll add and remove names from that shortlist as they see fit, willingly adding alternatives based on marketing rather than history, when you should be doing both, that's where the effort comes in, finding a name that is both fitting and marketable, not giving up and going for marketability alone. And of course, you could end up never even doing this voting, and if we complained, well, the safety net was included in the statement, not only with the word "consider", but also with "[if the] circumstances allow for it". If it never happens, then I guess the circumstances just never allowed for it to happen, but if it does, it'll certainly be seen as a great move on WG's part to "get the community involved" and "truly listen to their feedback". No risk, high reward, as they say. To close it off, I'd like to mention part of the lyrics of a song that I couldn't happen but be reminded of while reading WG's absurd reasoning for keeping the name Atlântico: "The unenlightened masses They cannot make the judgement call Give up free will forever Their voices won't be heard at all" I wish you all a great day, and may the minds of the minds of the "unenlightened masses" become more open than their wallets in the future, lest we start naming pre-WW2 US carrier projects "Doris Miller".
  8. Not so long ago, WG announced the Pan-American tier VIII premium dockyard battleship "Atlântico". She is a Brazilian battleship based on a combination of two main projects, primarily Design 782 (a proposed alternative to Design 781, which was chosen by Brazil in 1914 to be built under the name "Riachuelo"), from which it takes most of its characteristics (armor, main battery layout, hull shape), and additionally Design 686 (one of the proposals for a Brazilian battleship in 1910-1911, which would eventually result in the "Rio de Janeiro", later "HMS Agincourt"), from which WG took the inspiration to add an intermediate set of armaments in the form of 8x2 234mm guns (Design 686 called for only 3x2 240mm guns). The ship is also presented under a series of modernizations that could've happened had she actually been built. Historical inaccuracies with the ship itself aside, the biggest issue me and many other Brazilian players had was regarding the name chosen for the ship, "Atlântico". This has to be one of, if not the worst case of misnaming a ship in WoWs, worse than Congress, Milano, and Yukon combined. In this post, I intend to explain why it's such a poor choice, and how it could and should be changed. Before I do that, however, I would like to point out that I tried reaching out to WG to raise this issue through our Brazilian CM, and the fact I'm writing this should show how successful I was, so my only option is to reach out to the community, and hopefully expose the issue enough for WG to at least explain their reasoning for choosing such a terrible name, and ideally changing it before it's too late. So, why is "Atlântico" such a bad name? Simply put, this battleship is a modified design from 1914. Brazil would only name a ship "Atlântico" 104 years later, in 2018, with the purchase of the British carrier "HMS Ocean". To put it into perspective, in 1914 Brazil hadn't even celebrated 100 years since its independence. The name is completely disconnected from any standards the Brazilian Navy would've had at that time. I can only assume that the reason for choosing this name had more to do with marketing than history, since "Atlântico" being the name of the main capital ship in the Brazilian Navy right now might attract more players who neither know nor care about Brazilian naval history, but are aware of our Navy's recent acquisitions, if only by name. While Brazil may have only had two dreadnought battleships, plus a third that was built, but never served Brazil, and a fourth that was ordered, named, and then canceled, that is still four named ships of this type, enough to form a pattern to understand naming conventions in the Brazilian Navy, so let's take a look at those first: -"Minas Geraes", "São Paulo" and "Rio de Janeiro": These three Brazilian states from the southeast region gave name to three Brazilian dreadnought battleships. They were (and still are) all highly populated, and had a strong economy, making them particularly valuable for the nation, and worthy of having their names used in what were the most powerful ships in the Brazilian Navy at the time. From these examples, it's very clear that Brazil had a standard for naming dreadnought battleships after its most relevant states. From that, we can guess what other Brazilian ships of this type could be named, states such as Paraná and Santa Catarina (also important states with economic relevance, they are located in the south region of Brazil, between São Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul, the latter having its name used in one of our Bahia-class cruisers, also acquired in the early 20th century), or Pernambuco (State in the northeastern region, part of the Brazilian coast, and as such, also an important state, in fact, "Pernambuco" was one of the main names considered for our modern carrier "Atlântico") or even Amazonas (well known for its great size and major forests, and also for having its name used in the frigate comanded by Admiral Barroso, one of the most famous Brazilian Admirals, during the Battle of Riachuelo. The name was going to be used in one of the Barroso-class cruisers, the sistership to the tier II cruiser "USS Albany"), though any of our 26 States' names would be preferable over the Atlantic Ocean. -"Riachuelo": The last of the dreadnought battleships Brazil tried to acquire changed the naming convention of the previous dreadnoughts of the nation. Instead of being named after a Brazilian State, it was named after the Battle of the Riachuelo, a major and decisive battle in the Paraguayan War, won in 1865 by the naval forces of the Empire of Brazil, led by the previously mentioned Admiral Barroso in his flagship, the "Amazonas". The name "Riachuelo", chosen to be carried by this Brazilian dreadnought, would become a common name for Brazilian submarines in modern times. During the last decade of the Empire of Brazil, the navy named it's largest battleship, acquired in France, as "Riachuelo", setting an important precedent in naming conventions and breaking away from the naming conventions of man-o-wars (Brazil was the only nation in South America to operate such vessels). Based on the fact that this name remained extremely relevant, we can look into other names that also relate to the Paraguayan War in order to find something more suitable for the inaptly named "Atlântico". One big example is "Humaitá", a name that refers to the Fortress of Humaitá, a major fortification in the Paraguay River, that was considered to be the "Gibraltar of South America". Seen as the main bulwark closing access to Paraguay by river, the fortress was taken by the Brazilian forces in 1868, in what became known as the Siege of Humaitá, yet another major victory in the Paraguayan War that is celebrated to this day alongside the Battle of Riachuelo, throughout the 20th Century and in modern times, wherever there's a Brazilian submarine named "Riachuelo", you can expect the next ship in the class to be named "Humaitá". Another example is "Aquidabã" (or its old orthography: "Aquidaban")*, a name that refers to the Aquidabán River, where the last battle of the Paraguayan War took place, in 1870. The name was chosen to become the second battleship under the Riachuelo-class (although slightly smaller than the lead ship) in the 1880's. Unlike "Riachuelo" and "Humaitá", the name "Aquidabã" was not used after 1906, when the Brazilian ironclad carrying the name was sunk in an accident, probably because the battleship was used as flagship of the opposing forces during the civil war that broke out after the monarchy was overthrown in 1889. Part of the navy rebelled against presidential authoritarianism - high-ranking officers included - leading to an episode know as "Revolta da Armada" (literally, revolt of the navy), which joined forces with the Federalist Revolt raging in the southern states of Brazil. This rebellion would set two groups inside the Brazilian Navy and the rivalry would last for another half century. To avoid further animosity inside the navy, the name "Aquidabã" hasn't been used since. Regardless, the name still fits the naming conventions of Brazil, especially for a ship based on an alternative design for the dreadnought "Riachuelo". Additionally we can also extend this standard to include other names used by Brazilian ironclads and frigates during or after the end of the Paraguayan War, as well as names of any ships that took part in the major battles of the conflict. Naturally, this once again leads us to some previously mentioned ships, like the frigate "Amazonas", but we also get a few new names, such as "Ipiranga", "Beberibe", "Belmonte", "Araguari", "Iguatemi", "Mariz e Barros", "Herval", "Cabral", "Lima Barros", "Silvado", "Sete de Setembro", "Pará", "Alagoas", "Piauí", "Ceará" and "Santa Catarina" (and wouldn't you know, these last five names are based on Brazilian States, it's almost as if we usually name our ships after those, rather than... the ocean). Many of these names were used and re-used to designate coastal and fluvial monitors and smaller armored vessels during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. So, that's what we get with the existing standards for Brazilian battleship names, but I am not done yet. I am not joking when I say "Atlântico" is one of the worst names WG could've chosen, as it is so bad we Brazilians would rather get something akin to the american cruiser "Congress", a name that isn't necessarily fitting for a ship of the type WG wishes to introduce, but at the very least, it's a name that was used before in a ship of the same Navy, any ship at all. While less than ideal, there are some good names with meaningful history behind them that can result from this otherwise lesser standard, for example: -"Niterói" (or its older orthography: "Nichteroy"): Named after the Brazilian City of Niterói, which used to be the Capital of the State of Rio de Janeiro. The name was used by a few Brazilian ships throughout history, a notable one was the frigate "Niterói", the first ship in which served the legendary Admiral Joaquim Marques Lisboa, Marquis of Tamandaré, back in 1823. It would also be the name of the modern Niterói-class frigate that would carry the ashes of this same Admiral, now recognized as the Patron of the Brazilian Navy, back to the city where he was born (Rio Grande, in the State of Rio Grande do Sul) in 1994. While not within our standards to name a Battleship after a city, the fact this name also carries with it the history of the Patron of the Brazilian Navy does give it much more value, more than... the ocean. -"Rio Grande": It seems pointless to repeat myself, but once again, this is the name of a city in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, the historical significance of which comes from being the birth place and final resting place of the Patron of the Brazilian Navy. The name was used before by a Pará-class monitor that participated in the Siege of Humaitá. -"Solimões": The name refers to the Solimões River, and was commonly used by Brazilian monitors. -"Paraguassú": Another name of a river used by a brazilian monitor. -"Brasil": Much like "France" or "United States", Brazil also named an ironclad after the entire nation. -"Angostura": Not as well known as "Humaitá", Angostura was also the name of a Paraguayan fortress that was taken by Brazilian forces in 1868, during the Paraguayan War. The name was first used in an Imperial Marinheiro-class corvette, but was also chosen as the name for the fourth modern Riachuelo/Scorpéne-class submarine, earning a meaningful spot alongside her undeniably more famous sisters, "Riachuelo", "Humaitá" and, to a lesser extent, "Tonelero". -"Tonelero": A name used mainly by Brazilian submarines of the Oberon and Scorpéne classes, it references the Battle of the Tonelero Pass from 1851, where Brazilian forces broke through the forces of the Argentine Confederation. For even longer than "Angostura", the name "Tonelero" stood side by side with "Riachuelo" and "Humaitá". -"Independência": Literally the word "independence", this name references the Brazilian Independence. It was considered for a Brazilian pre-dreadnought, but would end up only being used with any level of significance in modern times as the name of one of the Niterói-class frigates. -"Constituição": Literally the word "constitution", it is currently the name of another Niterói-class frigate, but was also used in the past to name a Brazilian frigate that took part in the Cisplatin War. -"Vitória": Literally the word "victory", it was for a brief period the name of the Brazilian monitor later renamed "Paraguassú". -"Guanabara": The name used notably by one of the Balao-class submarines transfered to Brazil, and currently used by a patrol boat, it refers to the Guanabara Bay, in Rio de janeiro. -"Recife": The name of the Capital of the State of Pernambuco, it was not commonly used, but happened to be the name of a Brazilian frigate that served as our flagship in the Battle of the Tonelero Pass. -"União": Literally the word "union", it is currently known as the name of yet another Niterói-class frigate, but was also the name of a Brazilian corvette during the Battle of the Tonelero Pass. I should make it clear that I don't like all of these names, but all of them would be preferable over "Atlântico", at worst they have more meaning and history behind them than "Atlântico", and at best they actually fit with the naming conventions of the Brazilian Navy in 1914. If it was up to me, my ideal choices would be "Aquidabã", "Humaitá", "Paraná", "Santa Catarina", "Pernambuco", and "Amazonas". Others may have different preferences. As a reminder of how bad the name that WG chose is, the official launch of World of Warships predates the first Brazilian ship named "Atlântico", this game is older than the name WG chose for a battleship from 1914, you can't make this stuff up. So please, WG, listen to the very community you are trying to please with this ship, and change its name. Thank you.
  9. Captain_Benevolent_Fair

    Como seria uma Árvore Brasileira no WoWs?

    Essa lista foi feita depois que a WG recusou a primeira opção que qualquer um escolheria como nome para esse navio, Aquidabã. Esse deveria ter sido a 1ª, 2ª e 3ª opção, todo o resto foi uma tentativa de salvar o navio do que eu ainda considero o pior nome. A lista foi criada contendo nomes que fossem funcionais, mas não interferissem com futuros navios brasileiros em potencial (por exemplo, eu consideraria Amazonas um nome bom, se fosse ir na pegada de nomes de estados, mas poderia entrar em conflito com outros navios brasileiros de mesmo nome). Mas não, muito controverso, segundo eles, nós não usamos nomes controversos como Aquidabã no jogo, apenas nomes nada controversos como Lenin, cara super gente boa, confia. Sim, dessa lista, Ypiranga é provavelmente o melhor nome, é neutro mas simbólico, foi sugestão do Brooklin, e eu assinei em baixo tanto que acabou como nome do meu BB BR tier X.
  10. Captain_Benevolent_Fair

    Como seria uma Árvore Brasileira no WoWs?

    Bom, falando do Humaitá, é mais um caso de tanto ele como o Tupi me parecerem adeuqados ao tier VI, e ambos são reais, mas considerando quantos fatores sobre submarinos estão sendo balanceados de formas... questionáveis, seria possível tê-lo no tier VIII como navio de linha, e nesse caso os dois projetos holandeses ficariam como premiums tier VIII. Já o Minas Gerais, é apenas um reconhecimento dos padrões atuais, visto que GZ e Béarn também receberam o mesmo tratamento, e pessoalmente eu não vejo isso como sendo algo "errado", pois no fim das contas o jogo ainda precisa lucrar, e navios com mais história tendem a atrair mais compradores, além de permitirem a utilização de mecânicas diferentes das do resto da linha. fora que nos casos do GZ e do Béarn, eles foram adicionados bem antes de suas respectivas linhas, sendo a linha alemã feita inteiramente de papel, com o navio mais real sendo o Weser. Eu não encontrei nada em minhas pesquisas sobre interesse do Brasil em obter um Illustrious ou Implacable, esse último eu sei que chegou a ser oferecido à Argentina. Teve também o HMS Centaur, que tanto a Argentina quanto o Chile tinham interesse, mas em nenhum desses havia menção sobre o Brasil. Sobre o tier IV, eu acharia o Argus mais realista que o Langley, pois na época o Brasil ainda estava mais voltado para a Grã-Bretanha como fornecedora de navios, os EUA só começaram a se mostrar uma alternativa viável na década de 30, mas no pós-guerra se tornaram mais difíceis de fazer negócios, recusando a venda de navios grandes para múltiplas nações PanAm, razão pela qual muitas delas se voltaram novamente para a Europa, e especialmente a Grã-Bretanha, até o final da década de 50 quando os EUA começaram a nos fornecer navios maiores, exceto CVs e BBs que eles ainda acreditavam que não havia razão para termos. Eu não sou nenhum especialista nessa área, então é claro que espero que os nomes escolhidos não sejam necessariamente os ideais em todos os casos. Aprincipal questão é que usamos nomes de estados para tudo, de pequenos monitores à grandes encouraçados e porta-aviões. A solução que encontrei para isso foi focar nos outros tipos de nomes que poderiam ser aceitos para cada classe (cruzadores com nomes de Almirantes e Ministros da Marinha importantes, DDs com nomes de heróis da Guerra do Paraguai utilizados em corvetas ou fragatas, BBs com nomes relacionados à Independência do Brasil e à Guerra do Paraguai utilizados em Ironclads e pré-encouraçados). Nomes como Atlântico fogem totalmente do aceitável para mim, por nunca terem sido utilizados antes de 2018, nem sequer considerados. Pessoalmente acho que tem que ter no mínimo uma "regra dos 50 anos ou da classe equivalente", em que qualquer nome utilizado 50 anos antes ou depois do navio em questão ter sido projetado ou considerado, é aceitável, assim como nomes de navios da mesma classe (ou equivalente de época, Ironclads e pré-encouraçados são válidos para BBs, corvetas e fragatas são válidos para DDs e cruzadores) sendo ideais os nomes que se encaixam em ambos os parâmetros Como eu disse, eu não sou especialista nessa área (só sou melhor que quem quer que tenha escolhido o nome desse encouraçado, disso não tenho dúvida). Se essa foi a lógica da WG, então isso só reforça tudo o que eu falei, é uma falta de respeito e consideração com a nossa história naval. O problema aqui é que o nome não só foge dos padrões de nomes de BBs brasileiros (e equivalentes), como é um dos poucos nomes totalmente novos implementados pela Marinha, ele seria incorreto para QUALQUER navio brasileiro de antes da década de 60 (e justamente por isso, é particularmente estúpido usá-lo em um encouraçado, quando BBs sequer eram relevantes no pós-guerra), seria o mesmo que eu chamar aquele projeto de submarino holandês da década de 30 de Álvaro Alberto porque "a marinha vai ter um submarino chamado Álvaro Alberto, então não tem problema". Se o padrão da WG é tão superficial que basta utilizar o nome de um navio moderno conhecido pelo público, não seja por isso, as fragatas da Classe Niterói todas possuem nomes mais adequados, alguns que já foram utilizados por navios brasileiros no final do século XIX/ início do século XX. Poderia chamar de Angostura, Tonelero, Jerônimo de Albuquerque, Júlio César de Noronha, Mariz e Barros. Eu cansei de atribuir à preguiça o que a WG fez, é pura incompetência à esse ponto, a total incapacidade de abrir uma porcaria de página da Wikipédia. Só de brinde, toma essa lista que eu e o Brooklin (que sabe bem mais do que eu sobre o assunto, e é igualmente contra o nome Atlântico) mandamos pra WG, com sugestões de alterações de nomes, o único cuja resposta ainda está pendente é o primeiro(provavelmente vai ser recusado também, dado o nível de incompetência do historiador da WG responsável pelo nome do Atlântico), todos os outros foram recusados: -Deodoro -Ypiranga/Ipiranga -Solimões -Lima Barros -Paraguassú -Silvado -Sete de Setembro -Imperial Marinheiro -Santa Catarina -Ceará -Piauí -Alagoas -Espírito Santo -Pernambuco
  11. Captain_Benevolent_Fair

    Como seria uma Árvore Brasileira no WoWs?

    Todas as linhas adicionadas.
  12. É do conhecimento de muitos que a Argentina possui navios e projetos suficientes para ser uma nação separada da Pan-América, da mesma forma que a Holanda e Espanha foram separadas da Europa. Porém, menos conhecido é o fato de que, nos padrões atuais do jogo, o mesmo vale para o Brasil. Tendo isso em mente, estou criando este tópico para compartilhar todas as possibilidades que o Brasil pode trazer para este jogo, com linhas completas, navios premium, e até super navios. Esse tópico não será tão detalhado quanto o meu outro tópico sobre linhas Pan-Americanas, ele não vai se aprofundar em possíveis estatísticas para os navios nem as gimmicks que a nação teria. O foco é mostrar todos os navios e projetos que poderiam ser adicionados para criar uma Árvore inteira. Para deixar mais evidente os fundamentos para cada navio que escolhi, estarei marcando os navios reais do Brasil com a cor AZUL, os projetos ou planos reais do Brasil com a cor VERDE, os projetos ou planos reais altamente modificados do Brasil (como é o caso com o encouraçado erroneamente nomeado Atlântico) em AMARELO, e os projetos ou planos inventados sem fundamento histórico que os justifiquem como navios brasileiros (como Hindenburg, Harugumo e toda a linha de CLs Pan-Asiáticos com exceção do Chungking) em VERMELHO. Então vamos começar com os cruzadores: E agora encouraçados: Contratorpedeiros: Porta-aviões: Submarinos:
  13. Captain_Benevolent_Fair

    Ship Suggestion Bolzano (And her wacky hybrid conversion)

    They sure don't look terrible from the images provided. In, fact, in her ideal kiting angle, I'd wage she can actually fire 6 guns instead of 5. Sure, she can't keep that angle at all times, but neither can any cruiser. You fire all guns when possible, and are limited to some of them when the priority is avoiding damage, there is nothing out of the ordinary here. There is also a huge difference between tier 6 and tier 8, the DD dispersion on Tone is irrelevant, I was comparing her to other cruisers that have the same dispersion (also improved dispersion is a gimmick, but we'll get to that), I already gave enough evidence that Bolzano's firepower would be fine at tier 6, above average even, with the only real drawbacks being that she can't fire any of her guns forward, and that she has the weakest single salvo, which I already said it's hardly as big of a weakness when she'll fire 3 salvos in less time than most cruisers will fire 2, and that reload advantage will build up over time leading to her main advantage in her unmatched SAP DPM. As such the planes would still act as a smaller part of her kit compared to her main armament, just like Tone. This is what we like to call a strawman argument. You pretend that I said the ship needed to have all the gimmicks I mentioned, when I was just listing options. The ship doesn't need any of them as I see it, but without any of them she would be more challenging to play. Having any one of them would make her more comfortable. If Tone didn't had her heal, improved dispersion, and best in tier concealment, she would not be tier 8 material, yet Bolzano could be a tier 6 without any additional gimmicks, not the best tier 6, not the easiest ship to play, but a tier 6 nonetheless, held together by her high DPM and likely decent HP, speed and armor (if Trento is anything to go by) as well as having her planes as an additional armament. And if all those advantages on the base ship are not enough to offset the drawbacks, then we start thinking about what we can add to make her more enjoyable, maybe a smoke to allow her to farm damage without exposing herself, maybe a fuel smoke so she can reach ideal positions safely or get out of bad situations, maybe just a simple heal so she can endure longer periods of time, or an engine boost to make dodging easier. You don't have to give her godtier aircraft, you don't have to add every gimmick under the sun for her, as much as you want to pretend that that is the case, the base ship has enough to warrant having a look, and only through testing would we be able to define for sure if she needs anything more than what the design offers. "You would still have a 5-gun broadside that will be extremely difficult to fully utilize given the gun arrangement shown without opening yourself up to citadels, which is extremely anemic at tier VI and VII." "Even as a hybrid cruiser, she still needs to be a halfway decent cruiser - which this design is not" "There is a huge difference between 5 90mm guns (effectively) and 8 203mm guns (with DD dispersion and good firing angles)" Every time we talk about the guns you bang on the same key, that the ship cannot be a good tier 6 cruiser because she only has 5 guns with bad firing angles (according to you, at least), you even go as far as to point gimmicks applied to other ships that suffer from a similar issue, as if those could not also be applied to this one (if dispersion is ever an issue, we can now have dispersion as low as Elbing if need be, and since this is just a project, and can receive modifications, big or small, there's nothing stopping WG from changing the distance between the guns to provide better firing angles or allowing more guns to fire if need be, or changing the superstructure to the same effect). The way I see it, you refuse to acknowledge any advantages this ship might have, continuously focusing on her weakness to maintain your view that she can never work in the way OP suggested, or that anything one does to make her work is going too far into the gimmick box despite a lot of the design's advantages being unrelated to additional gimmicks. You also see the base project as something that is set in stone (rather than the basic concept for a ship that could be modified in many ways, some minor, some major), playing by standards that are no longer present in this game. Worse even, your focus on the small number of guns is so outdated that the tier 9 DD with the best firepower is the one with the least amount of guns, and it's not filled to the brim with gimmicks, the same might soon be said about the tier 10, but I guess this tier 6 cruiser can never be like that unless we did what? Throw every gimmick and the kitchen sink at it? You can say it however you want, I'm just telling it how it is. If me making fun of how silly the argument of a ship not having enough guns is not to your liking, then find better arguments. Or don't. Either way I don't care to stay in this conversation any longer. I had enough of the "this ship won't work at this tier" discussions end the exact same way. "Agincourt can't be tier 5, she doesn't have enough armor", "You can't put an ultra light AA cruiser above tier 8, they won't have enough HP, armor, or firepower", "You can't put WWI era super dreadnoughts above tier 7, they are too slow".
  14. Captain_Benevolent_Fair

    Ship Suggestion Bolzano (And her wacky hybrid conversion)

    So, as a hybrid ship, and given the concept of existing hybrids in game, the ship would seldom play aggressively, so having no guns facing forward is hardly an issue. A small number of guns on a broadside is not synonym with bad firepower. She would lack the alpha damage to deal high damage in a single salvo, but would have no issues doing continuous damage with a high DPM, which is equally important for a cruiser. Assuming standard damage values for 90mm SAP,, and a 3.5s base reload, this 5 gun ship would reach just over 170k SAP DPM. For comparison, Trento has 155k, and Amalfi has 175k. Of course that, with only 5 guns, this DPM only becomes a real advantage in long duration fights, but the same holds true to light cruisers in general. The fact the values would be this high when the ship is not relying entirely on the guns is pretty impressive. For the record, of the existing hybrids in-game, I consider Tone to be the most balanced. Tone has less firepower than Aoba. She is still the superior ship, not only because of her hybrid nature, but also because of her great concealment and repair party, but you wouldn't infer that just from looking at the gun stats, those alone are so bad that Myoko has higher HE DPM than Tone has AP DPM. While I'd say I've already shown enough evidence that Bolzano's firepower wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be, it is undeniable that what would make or break her would be her consumables. Stuff like repair party or smoke generator can significantly increase her effectiveness, and that's assuming we don't do any funny business like that alt-fire mode, which is a gimmick that if given to Bolzano would pretty much counter the lack of guns altogether, since it would magically let you fire double the shells. This is just scratching the surface of what could be done to the ship that would easily make her a solid tier 6, but dare I say it still has more thought put into it than "not enough guns, bad bote". Lastly, if we really are gonna be as surface level as to say the ship wouldn't work because it doesn't make big boom boom. There's a simple solution WG can implement that would make her twice as strong. It's called "sekrit dokuments". With the power of sekrit dokuments WG can change those puny single mounts of 90mm guns for the giga chad dual mounts of the same gun we see on tier 9 and 10 Italian cruisers and BBs. They did nearly tripled the amount of 234mm guns originally intended to be in Atlântico's original design, and then put those on a different design, so this would be easy mode compared to that, not like we're even remotely pretending to be historically accurate nowadays anyway. Then you'd have 340k SAP DPM (that's more than Atlanta's HE DPM btw), might as well make her a tier 7 now, or double the reload so we can keep her at tier 6, then we'll reach the same values as before, but guns will make big boom boom now.
  15. Captain_Benevolent_Fair

    Ship Suggestion Bolzano (And her wacky hybrid conversion)

    My bad, guess I misread the last part. Well, no disagreements from me in that case.
×