Jump to content

COMPAC2

Members
  • Content Сount

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4221
  • Clan

    [IRERO]

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About COMPAC2

  • Rank
    Seaman Recruit
  • Insignia
  1. COMPAC2

    Can we make a difference?

    The better question than CAN we influence the direction of the game, is HOW? Our options are either: 1.) Complain, gripe, or otherwise raise hell at every public WOWS event. 2.) Stop spending money on the game. 3.) Stop playing/logging in. Option 1 helps the old excuse that we get from WG time and time again, that we are a vocal minority, simply trolls, or simply cheap and wants things for free. As demonstrated yesterday, it also makes us look like bigger jerks than WG. Option 2 matters less than you'd think. While WOWS is unique among online games in having an older, more historically focused core audience, their revenue-generating tactics are all focused at much younger players, i.e. non-existent/paper ships with gimmicks more fit for a mobile arena game and gambling mechanics most older players would be wise enough to avoid. The core who cares is likely spending less than the high-volume churn at the bottom. Option 3 is obviously the least pleasant, as it requires us to give up a hobby. However, the focus on daily log-in rewards shows that this is a metric that WG values, and may be a way to affect change (plus, if you can hold out for 90 days, you get the Warspite free). However, it has the same flaw as option 2: we're all replaceable. Is WG publicly traded? Maybe we could buy controlling interest. Otherwise, strap in for the slow descent into World of Warships: Shadow Legends
  2. The National Museum of the Pacific War has created a permanent tribute in his honor. If you would like to see his work continued or want to give in his honor, you can go to their website www.pacificwarmusuem.org/join-give/tributes and specify that you are giving in his honor. The above text was copied from the NMPW's quarterly mailer, which was how I learned of his passing. He worked frequently with them, one of his many contributions to not only the research side of naval history, but the public outreach as well.
  3. I think the poor detectability of pan Asian DDs is the balance for their relatively stealthy torps. Personally, I think WG could make some good money by charging a few hundred dubs to try out high tier tech-tree ships (say 500 dubs for a three-match rental, must have a ship of that tier in port to rent a ship of that tier). That way you'd be able to get a better feel for what you are about to spend the next several weeks/months grinding, and could avoid disappointments like this.
  4. If only there was a button you could click to hide stats... But in all seriousness, game statistics are public information, and my stats are my responsibility. If I'm not willing to put in the effort to improve my stats, or the (significantly smaller amount of) effort to hide them, what right do I have to get tilted if someone looks me up?
  5. COMPAC2

    Returning Player With a Question

    I would hold out 2 or 3 weeks, to see if there is another free respec with the deadeye rework. This might be a bit tedious, since they will probably not give you another master reset button, but it beats spending dubs (don't pay extortionists). Sadly, I doubt we'll get another free mod demount for all classes.
  6. To begin, a brief summary of the current discourse regarding CV and AA balance: Surface Ship Player: CVs are OP. No matter how many planes we shoot down, they get a drop off. Our AA does nothing. CV Player: Are you kidding me? If I get uptiered at all, I get shredded. I'm launching half-strength squadrons two minutes in. Now, a brief history lesson: AA guns were not placed on ships to shoot down enemy aircraft. Fleet aircraft were the primary weapon against enemy aircraft. They were emplaced to protect the ship. If every aircraft of an enemy squadron survived, but they were unable to drop effectively due to the intensity of the AA fire, the primary mission of the gunners was a success (although the secondary mission, to attrite enemy men and materiel, would be a failure). Similar to covering fire during an infantry movement, ship AA was dependent upon the self-preservation instincts of the enemy pilot to be fully functional. This is (partially) why the kamikazes of WWII and the Exocets of the Falklands were such effective weapons: neither a missile nor a man bent on self-immolation has much of a penchant for survival and as such, the AA battery must destroy the incoming threat, as it cannot be deterred. But what does this have to do with my arcade game? Prior to update 8.0, the DFAA consumable affected incoming aircraft in the same way that intense AA fire would have historically. It dispersed the incoming attack, reducing the probability of a successful attack. 8.0 took the CV player off of the bridge and into the cockpit, and DFAA was likewise changed to a simple DPM boost. The surface Ship now had no option but to shoot down the entire incoming squadron, which now functioned like guided missiles, rather than planes. After all, it would make no sense if shots the player fired directly suddenly scattered just because their intended victim activated a consumable, would it? Enter Dazzle Under update 10.0, a mechanic has been introduced which temporary increases the dispersion of incoming fire when activated. DFAA can, and should, function the same way. Whether this is is accomplished by increasing the size of the aiming reticle, by increasing the dispersion of the ordinance dropped, or by shaking and buffeting the squadron (such that a CV player could learn to pilot through it, thus adding an element of skill to CV play), I will leave to the developers. This provides warship players with a more effective counterplay, without drastically increasing the numbers of aircraft lost during strikes, all while retrieving some of this historical accuracy the game has lost over the years.
  7. Is it generally considered a good sign for the overall health of a free-to-play game when, following a string of questionable (or at least controversial) decisions by the leadership and development team, they start literally paying people to play it? Asking for a friend...
×