Jump to content

mcgibe

Members
  • Content Сount

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5161
  • Clan

    [KENT]

Community Reputation

173 Valued poster

About mcgibe

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Under the sea
  • Interests
    Mechanics, building things, destroying things, history, reading, writing, doing ridiculously hard math problems, having a normal life.

Recent Profile Visitors

517 profile views
  1. Comparing wows to chess feels silly, especially when each "pawn" is controlled by an individual person with goals and motivations that may not line up with everybody else's
  2. Hapa, I like you and what you do for the community on the forums, but these stats are a bit misleading. Checking these stats for myself, I saw that you were correct about what you were saying, but that these stats were including the premium tier 10 ships. The premiums are in a class of their own when it comes to performance due to the fact that the higher level players and grinders will be the ones who have them. Divorcing the premiums from the equation and only taking into account the silver ships gives us some different stats. Looking at the top 50% of players, the better half, on stats and numbers shows us that Kremlin tops all of the tier 10 battleships in win rate (60.98%), average frags (1.23), average experience (2,184), and plane kills (5.95). Conqueror only beats her in the KDR department by a measly 0.13. To be fair, she is beaten by conqueror and republique in average damage, but only by a maximum difference of 14k damage (All these stats were pulled from wows stats and numbers NA). Now I'm not trying to attack you at all or say that soviet ships are overpowered because Kremlin performs the best out of all the silver ships. I really don't believe soviet bias is present with most soviet ships. Ognevoi and khabarovsk need some help, schors and buddony can be citadelled by most destroyers they face, even moskva isn't considered to be that strong. But there has been a trend that's been set recently with over performing soviet ships being conceptualized and some even being released (not to mention that most players I've spoken to on NA weren't really asking for a Soviet cruiser split.) That's all I have to say right now. Hope you guys stay safe though in these trying times and I'll see you on the high seas! Mcgibe
  3. Agreed. Worcester is not an open water spammer, just like DM. Both need to use islands to shoot without being shot, and both excel at team play (divisions, Destroyer support at at cap, etc). Nevsky and Worcester seem to be two different things right now. My biggest gripe with nevsky as she is right now is that this so called "light cruiser" has 19km of base range, more health than some of the heavy cruisers, spaced armor and a 50 mm bow, a detectability of 10.6 km with 12km radar (especially irritating when WG nerfed all other radar ships so as to not allow stealth radar), and 1km per second shell velocity because soviet magic, meaning you can citadel other cruisers from absurd ranges. And all of this is being marketed to us as a "light cruiser"? No. No this is not. I won't get into petropavlovsk and the other soviet heavy cruisers because they look even worse, but my fundamental issue with this "light cruiser" is that there is nothing light about it. I could also talk about how this ship promotes selfish playstyles, but that's a whole other can of worms. This won't replace worcesters playstyle, but it will surely push it towards the realm of obscurity.
  4. mcgibe

    IFHE change is trash

    Imo the IFHE change was a good thing. Cruisers and destroyers with small caliber guns should not penetrate almost anything at their tier. The benefits of IFHE far outweighed the drawbacks of the skill pre rework, and it was a must for most light cruiser and destroyer captains. With these changes, you won't be doing obscene damage as you rain on targets at the edge of you're range, you'll instead have to play with you're team and target DDs and same tier cruisers. BTW, smolensk was such a disgustingly overpowered ship. Any nerf to it will always be seen as a good thing in my opinion.
  5. Yes comrade. This was my application and now I am the head of WG's PR and balance departments. It's time to make Soviet navy great again
  6. Are those Soviet ships?
  7. Lots of people (especially those mean CC's) have made the RIDICULOUS claim that Soviet ships are too powerful. This is NOT true as the soviet navy still needs MAJOR BUFFS!!! Here are my reasons why. 1. Not enough ships: the Soviet navy was a huge navy historically. With over 4,000 khabarovsk class destroyers built every week, the might of the Soviet navy was unquestionably powerful. In Wows, however, the Soviet navy has only 4 lines and this feels like an insult to the people. The new cruiser line coming out will help remedy this, but we need more soviet ships. I recommend 4 new lines by the end of next year. 2. No Soviet aircraft carriers: speaking of lack of Soviet ships, WHERE ARE SOVIET AIRCRAFT CARRIERS! We already have capitalist American and British aircraft carriers, but none for the Soviets!!! Unacceptable!! I want my Novosibirsk and Siberia class aircraft carriers. They alone managed to destroy the Bismarck and the rest of the german fleet. But you guys neglecting them from the tech tree is ignorant to history. I want their hydrogen rockets and tzar bomb aircraft. 3. Slava is not in the game yet: yes I understand that WG wants to make her as legendary as she was historically, but COME ON! Slava was the most powerful battleship in the world. She alone won the Battle of Tsushima and forced the japanese to beg for peace from the mighty Soviets. She needs to be in the game and needs to be in now. I can't wait any longer! 4. The Soviet ships in Wows are underpowered: Soviet ships in Wows are not as powerful as their real world counterparts. Mighty Kremlin's turrets turn in 30 seconds. A far cry from the 10 seconds it took them in real life. Additionally, the armor on the Kremlin is too thin. The superstructure is WAY too squishy and can be penetrated by most HE spammers which is unacceptable. The bow and stern are a mere 50mm of armor plating which allows 240 mm guns with IFHE to penetrate which isn't allowed. Even the citadel is too high and doesn't have enough protection to prevent citadels from BBs at 5 km. Where is the 500mm of citadel plating that the ship had historically! Even the famous PKM class lead ship, Smolensk, doesn't have a radar. Where is my 20km historically accurate radar that can see through islands. These ships need buffs to make them tolerable. 5. French ships are overpowered: WG wth IS ALL THIS FRENCH BIAS!!!!! these silly french ships are too fast for even stalinium shells to hit! You need to take massive lead in order to even hit these ships! It's absolutely dumb that henri can penetrate the Kremlin's extremities when it takes the IFHE skill, and even Republique reloads faster than Kremlin! This is a complete slap in the face to us over on the Russian server. This French bias with these fake French ships is UNACCEPTABLE! I believe that we should remove all these silly fake French ships. In fact, REMOVE ALL FAKE SHIPS FROM THE GAME! It's not historically accurate and it's hurting the balance of this game. These are my biggest problems with Soviet ships. Please WG. Please listen to the feedback of a very concerned Russian player. I know people are whining about aircraft carriers, but buffing and adding more ships to the greatest navy in the world is the biggest issue. I'm sure everyone will be happy.
  8. Have you heard of our lord and saviour: carriers?
  9. This video: At 4:54 you censored the doubloons cost because it was the values from the public test server which were considerably less. That's called false advertising.
  10. mcgibe

    Puerto Rico meme

    No. That's why people don't like it
  11. mcgibe

    Puerto Rico meme

    It's not terrible. It's just that the Alaska is better in every possible way
  12. Have fun grinding that 1.4 million free xp in directive 7 then!
×