Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About _JollyRodge_

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/23/1991
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

355 profile views
  1. Still waiting for Kaga...almost 2 years later...
  2. I've been digging through the forums, the Haruna Line downloads and still I'm unable to locate a download link for "Skin Fog Pack Aoki Hagane no Arpeggio v7.0" If I recall, this is possibly the last ARP Modpack released before they began to replace some ARP skins in the pack with Space Fleet ships. Anyways, I'm looking to track down the files for all the old ARP skins, mostly for the Americans as Hakabase's ARP mod pack seems to cover the rest. I'm mostly looking to locate the skins for the USN DDs, Battleships Texas and North Carolina, and Aircraft Carrier Lexington. Also, could someone direct me to any thread or link explaining how I could create my own Arpeggio style skin? That would be very much appreciated. Thanks Wargaming community!
  3. _JollyRodge_

    What would you like to see in WOWS?

    Very much, yes. I saw on gamemodels3d.com Wargaming has I-401 Iona rendered, so it would be very exciting to have an I-400 class in the game after the submarine premiere. I also saw in the manga that USS Lexington, HMS Vampire, and HMS Repulse appeared as Fog ships as well. There's plenty more ships for Wargaming to pull from the series if they so wished. and I would be willing to participate in such events should they go live. Another thread had mentioned returning the current ARP ships for acquisition by adding them into the Arsenal. I feel that would be a great place to have them (if Wargaming were to renew their contract with ARP). They could also add in Fog Yamato and Musashi as well, and would be well-balanced for players to achieve through the Arsenal instead of simply putting in a mission to achieve them as they did with the previous fog ships.
  4. _JollyRodge_

    Rework Constructive Criticism

    Alright guys, I normally don't post often in the forum, but I feel something needs to be said about this rework. I've been trying to keep my finger on this pulse since I heard the news way back when, and after that initial leaked video went live, I was cautiously optimistic. I played some on the PTS and enjoyed my time in the carriers, and was looking forward to the live server. However, I feel that a lot changed between the two and even more so with this hotfix. So far, not a fan of it. I've been telling people to chill out, stop hating on the CVs, and just wait for the balancing to even out, but I feel this teetering too much when issues are addressed. I have both carriers as well as AA ships, and right now, I find them both completely frustrating. I've put my Atlanta into matches and only downed planes in single digits (per the match) while being completely focused by carriers, and have been dumbstruck at how ineffective Defensive Fire has become, and I as of yet have been convinced of the value of the priority sectors for AA. It actually feels like I've been downing more planes on my weaker half than my focused half. And on the other side, how are we as bombers supposed to handle maneuvering, when flak goes up like this?: I know this is more arcade game than WWII, but there is no way flak would have gone up like this in the 1940s. Even with maneuvering, I keep finding flak bursts exploding constantly within my planes. How does Wargaming expect to incentivise us to not F Spam, while still having our planes drop out of the sky as soon as they pass over our targets? I want to see this style of the carrier succeed, as I enjoy the concept of the action system better than the carriers of the RTS. on the PTS, I was running a match with a Ranger and after a series of bomb runs, I just sat back at the ship for a second, and admired all the functions still occurring around her. Bombers returning two by two straggling back from their runs, new bombers appearing onto the decks, I sat behind my screen thinking, "This is more of what a carrier should feel like." and not just click a button and see an icon on a map send smaller icons across the map, and "Oh look, you sank a ship." I left games like League of Legends because I got sick of the topdown cameras, and with the RTS, I felt disconnected from the carrier itself. So. Rant aside, these are some suggestions for a more enjoyable and hopefully more competitive carrier: Make flak more of a maze instead of the current walls of death, or at least make it less accurate/tightly grouped. I don't mind losing some of my planes, I however am irritated when I lose all my planes at once, no matter where I put them. Taking example from history, look up any WWII sea-to-air battle. Flak is seldom this concentrated. Most pictures, it seems the whole sky is lit up with flak. I would appreciate less bursts to "spawn" within my planes. It's just embarrassing. But flying around the burst could make for interesting actions Also, I would like to see the non-attacking planes while in an attack run, move further away from the attacking planes to avoid uncontrollable losses of otherwise idle aircraft. Possibly set a "Loiter" key before entering an enemy AA Aura and subsequent attack run, to avoid snapping to an empty squadron as soon as you've made your initial run. This could possibly be abused, so I would recommend maybe a consumable for it? I don't exactly agree with the punishment for using the F Key to save on planes, but I do understand the system abuse. I would suggest a "Pickle" consumable to return a similar, more regulated function to play. Much like dropping the fighters to protect bombers from other fighters, setting an "F Key Consumable" with a cooldown that much like historic instances, bomber pilots could pickle their bomb loads and instantly turn for home. Balance it so there's only a limited number of these, but if a carrier is running low on aircraft, they could press the key, and the planes instantly bail their payload and beeline out of whatever hostile AA Aura they are in. I agree with a suggestion iChase had made, about including a vertical element to carrier play. This would allow for more AA evasion, as well as breaking the repetitiveness that has been so often cried about. It would put the overall play closer to World of Warplanes, but it doesn't seem like everyone will ever be completely happy when it comes to carriers. I also agree with the CCs suggesting CV MM be 1 tier +/- instead of 2. It can be insane as a tier 8 in a tier 10 match, and I have experienced much irritation fighting ships that easily swat me from the sky. I'll probably be updating this thread as I play more to try and brainstorm more ideas with you guys in the community, but please, be civil. Wargaming is actively trying to make the aircraft carrier more appealing than it ever was, not just for the niche few, but available for everyone who plays Warships to hop into. It's going to be bumpy balancing this system, but I welcome the change overall and if you as the players have issue with the reworks, voice it to Wargaming in a constructive manner. So many posts just read "GG World of Warships" "Uninstall Warships" "CV rollback" and none of this whining is going to make the game better. Be specific in what you believe isn't working so the issues can be addressed and proper improvements can be made. Wargaming actually listens to you guys! do you really want your chance to be heard be wasted on "GG Warships"? Looking forward to seeing further responses and selections down below, and I'll see ya'll back in the fleet! UPDATE: 2/9/19
  5. With the unofficial date of the Carrier Rework being sometime late January, has there been any word about the return of the premium carriers to the shop? As a collector, I would love to have Kaga in my port but haven't heard anything about when/if the premium CVs will return to the premium shop. I couldn't afford the ship when she first premiered as I was penny-pinching for the Enterprise, but I would definitely be interested in purchasing her after the rework goes live.