• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

510 Excellent


About twitch133

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Birthday January 1
  • Portal profile twitch133

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Alpha Centauri
  • Interests
    Interstellar travel. Trolling anime fans and unicums. Ask me about my ping!
  • Portal profile twitch133

Recent Profile Visitors

408 profile views
  1. Those tree huggers are going to be so mad at you two. How dare you speak of trees like this?
  2. Early AA was a game of volume. Before radar guided guns. Even with Prox fuses it was still a volume game. Even more so after the Japanese started using Kamakaze. The name of the game was to stick as many AA guns on the ship as possible. To hell with the stability report.
  3. I will not deny though, the dev's really need to put in the extra work to improve the MM algorithm every time one of these new consumable's is release. It is game breaking when the enemy team has 4 radar ships and you have 1. Just as bad as one team having one DD and the other have zero. I understand the dev's want to roll as many games per hours as possible. But that is not good for QoL of the players. I would gladly sit in queue for a few minutes if it meant a more even match up every time when it comes to type of ship and consumables.
  4. And this is why there seem to be so many problems with players and DD's that lead to complaints about different mechanics. (Including radar) There is literally zero margin of error with a DD. Every step you make has to be calculated. You have to know everything going on around you. Where every ship is, or is likely to be, spotted or not. When the last set of torps that red DD used was, to know how long you have to safely use your smoke before another wave comes through. You have to know the position of every radar equipped ship, and when he used it last. You have to know EVERYTHING going on in the game. You live or die by your ability to read the mini map and predict player movements. You live or die by your ability to read the situation in front of you, and what red weapons or consumables are on cool down. But, in reward for that level of attention that is required, you get the fastest, most concealable ships in the game. With some of the most powerful weaponry. (A wall of torps generally will have the highest alpha in its tier.) You are the only ship that as the ability to reliably delete a full health capital ship that makes an error. You have the ability to determine when and where you fight, if the engagement is not going your way, you can disengage and choose another fight. Not only that, but you can control vision to a level exceeded only by CV's. You can cut off vision to the enemies with smoke, and you can give vision to friendlies using your superior concealment to act as a drone or scout. It is the drivers that fail to realize all of this, the ones that think their job as a DD is to yoloswag onto a cap at the start of the round, that come to the forums, complaining that radar is broken. But, Shadey, if you have figured this out this early in your DD career, there are likely good things in store for you as you learn to master them.
  5. Radar is fine as is. Yes, the fact that it can see through land masses is kind of cheesy, but, the developers did take the lazy way out with quite a bit of the coding in this game. Over simplifying stuff like line of sight and effective armor at angle for ease of production. It really is just a matter of, for lack of a better way to put it, "git gud". Yes, your concealment range as a DD can be 6.1 km. That does not, however, mean that you need to be sailing within 6.5 km of a Des Moines. If you are that close, if he lights you with radar and you die? It is your own damned fault. Not that of radar's. There are many ways to sail around radar and still have a positive outcome on the match. You are in the fastest, most manueverable type of ship in the game. Bloody use it. You can reposition with ease. Don't be a stubborn, bull headed idiot and try to cap the same flag that DM is on until it gets you killed. Go find something else useful to do for the team. A quick glance of the minimap will let you know where that is.
  6. Better question is... What is so hard for you to understand that it breaks several rules of the game??? Therefor, bad gameplay. It punishes players in ways that are also bad business practice, and that is subjective??? Do you not understand the difference between objective and subjective??? It is not my opinion that detonations break the rules of the game. It is fact that if an AOE penetrates more than what the shell is capable of, it is broken, it is bad gameplay. It could actually be borderline fraud to force a player to waste real world money on a game that they were not allowed to play in because of a bad RNG roll.
  7. So much this. Everybody is so quick to write off this abysmal player count as a byproduct of the game's niche in the market. "Oh, but there is no market for a naval MMO style game." False, you can build a popular game out of just about anything. Look at Overwatch and PUBG. Neither one of them were in particularly strong genre's. But they have both blown most other games out of the market. It is not the market that causes the low player count. It is the developer's wish to desperately hang on to a poorly designed mechanics for "History" and "Forcing collapse to increase games per hour".
  8. You are completely missing the point on objective vs subjective when it comes to game design. Player Y likes detonations because he likes history. This is subjective. Player W dislikes it because he thinks it is unfair, and ruins his enjoyment, this is subjective. Player X on the other hand (me) disagrees with it because it takes several rules and standards of the game and throws them out the door. You have certain rules of the game. Such as a USN HE/HC MK32 (127mm) does 1800 alpha. That means you can expect 594 damage from a regular pen on an unsaturated ship, 297 on a partial saturated ship, and 0 on a full saturated ship. You KNOW, being HE, that you will pen 21.16mm of armor regardless of angle. When you hit a ship that has 51mm of armor protection over the citadel magazine hitbox, and you do ~27K damage with one shot, you have just broken several major FACTS about how the game operates. This is objective. This is objective proof that detonation is bad gameplay. Another piece of objective proof that detonation is bad gameplay, is that it can remove you from the match before you have had a chance to participate at all. Causing the use of any consumable you mounted. Including ones mounted with real world money, such as gold camo, or consumables that you spent gold on. This is objectively unfair and not good game design or business practice.
  9. It should not be that hard to do from a programming stand point. All of that information is tracked in real time by the server. As that is what they determine your "confederate" and "high caliber" awards from.
  10. It is fairly objective, more so than opinion, that a mechanic that arbitrarily removes a player from the match for no other reason than an unfavorable RNG roll. While still charging them full, in game and real world prices (for example, camo or consumables bought with gold) is bad gameplay.
  11. Take your shell type, and multiply your number of shots fired by the alpha damage. Repeat once for each ordnance type you fired (HE, AP, torpedoes). Add them all up, and that is the potential you fired.
  12. This is a team based game. divisions are part of teamwork. They are it an unfair advantage, there is nothing further to discuss there. It is also a social game. If a player wants to div up with a few buddies and queue ranfind, that is perfectly ok.
  13. Cv's are a whole different can of worms. When it comes to new players, there was a new player that hosted a thread today, assuming the fact that he detonated an enemy DD was a glitch. (I am not personally convinced he is wrong. I think that the mechanic amounts to a gameplay glitch myself, but, I am a nerdy gamer elitist that thinks the history books should be thrown out the door. So what do I know? At least if this were any other game that was not published by WG, it would have been considered one. If I shot somebody in the chest in Siege, what normally would have been a survivable shot, and it killed him from full health, I would assume it was as hit registration issue, and the server awarded me a headshot, when I clearly got a body shot on my screen.) Then comes the CV's. How do you retain new players on the CV lines when they get crapped on by experienced players? Without removing their ability to learn a necessary high tier skill, or nuking their ability to do damage to the enemy? Without skill based matchmaking, as we all know that this game does not have the player base to support skill based MM. Not in the traditional sense, like Siege or Overwatch, were all ten players in the match are within X% Elo of each other. It does not help that they are playing a game within a game that has been very poorly integrated.
  14. Changing the game to attract new players is bad design. You start them out on one thing, and after a few rounds, they are playing what essentially amounts to a different game. Rainbow six siege had this problem. It was fairly rampant. It actually had me rage quite from the game a few times before I finally learned enough to start becoming competent. They were notorious for placing brand new players against veterans. In a game with one of the steepest skill curves out there. I have a few buddies that got stuck in a Macie_Jay video. I am sure you don't follow Siege, so, he is a well known streamer and youtuber in the community, who regularly takes on and defeats E-sports, pro league players. My two friends in the video? They had less than 40 hours of combine play time at the time. Going up against one of the best players in the game? How is that fun or fair for a new player? What they did to fix it? They introduced skill based matchmaking. (This is about the time that I felt I could get back into it. And it has actually been an enjoyable experience since.) This game is a bit of a different story. It already has a built in mechanism to slowly introduce new players to the nuances of the game. The only problem is, it does not explain them very well. As every time you go up a tier, ships get more lethal, and the gameplay gets more complex. Physically changing a game for no other reason that to retain players? That is bad gameplay and marketing. It tells me two things, you game is not interesting enough to retain them otherwise. And it is too complex for new players to be posted against veterans.
  15. See, "Gaming the system" like that makes for good, repeatable gameplay. When I am playing a shooter, such as Battlefield, or Siege. I like knowing what my approximate time to kill is. That way I know when I can start moving my crosshair off the target. I like knowing that if I am shooting at operator Jager, with operator Ash. That my gun is going to do 160 damage for a head shot, 34 damage for a body shot, and 24 damage for a leg shot. I like knowing that it will take me 4 body shots within the drop off range of my gun. I like knowing, that if I can skillfully aim and control my recoil that this will take about 140ms to accomplish. This is what makes for good, skill driven, intense, competitive gameplay. Not, "I am going to shoot the crap out of this guy, and hope he blows up randomly.". Oh, @LittleWhiteMouse On the earlier topic of retaining new players in this thread. I do not care how desperate a game is to attract new players, something like this is going too far. http://mp1st.com/news/gears-of-war-multiplayer-design-choice-gave-first-time-players-a-big-boost