Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

267 Excellent

About yacskn

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

788 profile views
  1. yacskn

    Are Russian BBs Over Powered at the moment?

    Whether they are OP at the moment is irrelevant. It only matters whether they're OP upon release. I keep seeing these "Is X OP?" threads about ships that are nowhere near release and I don't understand why. I understand you want to bash WG for whatever, but at least be reasonable about it. Talk about how loot crates are literally gambling, for example; something that actually deserves a discussion. Not this.
  2. Install MM monitor only if you want to be a condescending [edited] who starts ranting at the slightest perceived misplay and blame the team for everything, especially you dying early, after rushing in without an exit plan. If not, you're better off without it. MM monitor makes no difference whatsoever to the outcome of the game. It doesn't make you play better, but it does spoil your attitude against everyone else you're playing with and turns you into an insufferable bugger.
  3. yacskn

    Jean Bart or Salem - Undecided

    Doesn't make it a completely different ship. Des Moines doesn't have the heal Salem does either.
  4. yacskn

    Jean Bart or Salem - Undecided

    Uhmm... Richelieu? For me, the question comes down to which type you enjoy playing the most. I've a fair amount of premium ships I've sold and a couple I wish I could sell like the Nelson and the Musashi that I didn't enjoy playing. A ship you don't enjoy is a waste of money and/or resources. So with that, if you mostly enjoy cruisers, get the Salem. If you mostly enjoy battleships get the Jean Bart. No matter how intriguing it looks now, the new ship smell gets old real quick and you end up with a ship in your port that you will never play, regretting all the coal and steel you wasted.
  5. yacskn

    Nerf Stalingrad by Just Balancing the Game

    I was just about to say that. I am convinced 99% of the people that keep yelling the Stalingrad is OP are people who have read LWM's review and took it as gospel. The other 1% are those who keep sailing broadside to her. Heck, I don't even have her and I still think she's one of the easier ships to go against in T10.
  6. Thank god, I'm not the only one. I was starting to think I'm getting old because of how unrelentingly unfun the last few weeks have been. Certainly agree with your premise; a whole lotta games are steamrolls nowadays. And it's not even fun to be on the winning side when the game ends before you can contribute anything of substance. I had to take a 2-week break when the losses we were taking started getting so utterly and blatantly stupid that I was convinced no one was even sparing a glance at their minimap. The last game was a loss with no ships sunk and the most health someone on the other team lost was half his HP. The entire fleet except the two of us was huddled in a 4-square area in the right-hand corner of the Tears of the Desert map. It was so bad that for the first time in this game, I didn't get frustrated or angry, but sad. Just sad at the onslaught. Played a few games in the last few days. Though the games are a bit longer, the domination of one team over the other is still there. But yeah, not exactly fun. And that's the whole point of it, isn't it?
  7. I think it was because the skill floor was actually too low and the skill ceiling too high. I mean you could literally auto-drop without having to actually do anything, it doesn't get easier than that. It made people play lazily, those who learned and practised manual drops and strafes achieved a substantial advantage over those who played it casually. You make it easier for bad CV players to play the game and you actually widen the skill gap, not decrease it. And then we're back to the good old days of one team getting a good CV and the other that would be better off playing with an AFK. I already think the skill gap is more noticeable in the current iteration than in the old one; bad CV players are still bad while good CV players actually do more damage, more consistently than before.
  8. yacskn

    Nerf Stalingrad by Just Balancing the Game

    ^ This. ^ And this. A common joke amongst people who got the Stalingrad the original way is that they can't wait for everyone else to have it so that its stats drag down and their's turn purple. It's statistics, just simple regression to the mean. The more people play it, the more the stats will drop. Stalingrad has fewer than 70k games in it, compared to literal millions other T10 ships accumulated over the years. Give it time. Also a word to those who treat LWM's reviews as if they're the word of the Lord himself; they are useful, but they are simply someone's opinion. Someone who isn't that great when it comes to T10 play. And if you keep posting her reviews to stand in for an argument instead of your own, I immediately think you have no clue what you're talking about. I have, in multiple cases, took her reviews as my primary gauge to deciding whether a ship was good or bad and have, in multiple cases, realised they didn't agree with my experiences once I played them. Stalingrad is not an easy ship to play well, despite what LWM says. It relies heavily on a high level of situational awareness and map awareness. Bad positioning is an almost guaranteed early return to the port. So is just sitting bow-in and trying to tank, which is one of the biggest disservices LWM had inflicted on the average player and those who were hoping to magically achieve unicum status by getting a Stalingrad. Before you ask yourself whether the Stalingrad is OP, ask yourself whether you're good in a Moskva. If you aren't, you won't be good in a Stalingrad either. If it makes you feel any better, data says Moskva is firmly in the bottom half of all T10 ships in terms of performance.
  9. I want a return to when CVs could run out of planes. I know, "they don't have unlimited planes". Except when I'm getting bombed and rocketed and torped for 10 mins straight with all my AA except long-range whittled down to 0%, it sure [edited] feels like they are unlimited. I'll settle for more (a lot more) durable AA mounts too.
  10. yacskn

    Nobody wants to be sunk

    But it's not really solving the underlying, more serious issues, is it? It's like giving a guy with a broken leg a pain killer. Yes, it will help alleviate a symptom of the problem, but the dude's still got a broken leg. It's not when you die, but how you die and how much were you able to contribute before you died. A DD frequently getting plane spotted and not being able to torp/reposition/cap, but instead constantly dodging shells and trying to stay alive is far from fun, more HP is just prolonging the suffering.
  11. yacskn

    Laptop for WOWS, requirements?

    Right. That's like saying you couldn't even land on the Sun, so how would you know what it's made of. FYI, I've been playing and modding games for 20 years as well as fixing computers. I would know.
  12. yacskn

    Laptop for WOWS, requirements?

    Yea, no. Most games don't do that. Most games just stay the way they are, they only get gameplay updates. You need to upgrade your computer every 2-3 years not because you can keep playing old games, but to keep playing newly released games.
  13. yacskn

    Laptop for WOWS, requirements?

    Oh ffs, this game is not going to look like the Witcher 3 in a few years. In fact, it never will. WoT has looked pretty much the same for the last however-[edited]-many years and so will this. I TOLD YOU that I'm running the game on an onboard accelerator and you're still talking about GTX960 becoming obsolete! To the point, I ran War Thunder before and after their major graphics overhaul in an even worse computer than this one, which was bigger and more demanding than any of Wargaming's updates will ever be with their current engine, and it still didn't lose more than a couple of frames. No offence dude, but you're clearly not well informed on this topic. You need to stop spreading misinformation based on false assumptions.
  14. yacskn

    Laptop for WOWS, requirements?

    We've just proven that you're flying way too high. I don't know why you're still trying to convince people here that paying 4 times as much to play this game is more "realistic".
  15. yacskn

    Laptop for WOWS, requirements?

    Correct. Except you were the one that told him to spend a minimum of $1100, when it's been made clear that the budget is $300. At least we're trying to be helpful.