Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

20 Neutral

About RedDragonEmporer

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Birthday 06/29/1990
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New York State
  • Interests
    Anime, video games, culinary arts, movies, tattoos, music.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. RedDragonEmporer

    In response to recent dev blog on Submarines

    Exactly. As it stands submarines are screwed either way. a destroyer's best friend is stealth and DD players don't necessarily have to give up their stealth to do damage.
  2. Now I've played submarines A LOT since they were first introduced when I was part of Supertest. I do believe the dev team is making things much harder to balance submarines than they need to. They're on the right track but here are my thoughts and suggestions on better balancing: Sonar Ping: This right here is the SINGLE LARGEST PROBLEM for lack of submarine capabilities for the following reasons: The enemy knows they've been pinged. Submarines are stealthy hunters. The major danger of being in a submarine is the POSSIBILITY of the enemy finding out you're near by. So why on earth would it be considered a good idea to let the player's target know? They'll immediately start taking evasive actions making the submarine useless unless they don't use the ONE MECHANIC that allows them to do major damage. The target knows from which direction they've been pinged. Still ties into the first issue. The point of submarines is TO NOT BE DETECTED. But instead the one mechanic we need to do damage tells the target where I'm coming from. Too often the moment my target (usually battleships and some cruisers) gets pinged they'll immediately send ASW aircraft in my direction. They can remove the ping with damage control. My torpedoes are already in the water. They're on their way. So now... not only does the ship know it's been pinged, knows from which direction they've been pinged, they can also just shrug it off with a push of button. To make matters worse, depending on the length of time Damage Control is active.. there's a 100% chance my torpedoes will miss. So i've basically given away my position for free. Solution: The solution is pretty simple: REMOVE SONAR PING. No other ship type gives away their position when firing torpedoes. With the torpedoes now available in 2 different types we can change how they behave to make them more fair. Homing Torpedoes - Fast, Low Damage, Auto-Tracking. When you're locked onto a target these torpedoes will automatically follow the target. Torpedoes in the water will not change targets if you lock onto something else. This allows you to fire at multiple ships Magnetic Torpedoes - Slow, High Damage, Non-Tracking. Capable of citadel hits but will not follow the target just like regular ship torpedoes. This is more than fair. enemy players will know from which direction the torpedoes came from leading to the next bit to discuss. Surface vs Submarine Some changes that could be made are as follows Reconnaissance/Patrol Aircraft: Similar to how some ships can call for aircraft to drop depth charges so too should they be able to have aircraft search an area believed to have a submarine or other targets in hiding. SSelect an area within 10 KMs of your ship and aircraft will search in a 5 KM radius. Since submarines can still be detected by aircraft at certain depths this should be possible Hydrophone Changes: Increase the range but give it 2 effects. Let's say Bismark's hydrophone is 7 KMs. If a ship is between 5 - 7 KMs the Bismark will know the general direction of the ship. But once within 5 KMs the target is shown like it normally is. I do believe these changes would balance the gameplay for both sides and give submarines some breathing room they desperately need to be on par with the other classes.
  3. While I appreciate that you came out admitting your problem via YouTube I don't think it's fair to call yourself or anyone else names to make a point because all you're doing is proving you have no argument against any opinion or idea you don't agree with. Thanks for commenting.
  4. So ranked is set up to be just like Random and Clan Wars. All 3 modes are EXACTLY the same thing. Tell me the difference between them. only Clan Wars has any real difference being it's teams of clan members instead of teams of random players. I disapprove of having to be able to carry a whole game myself to be able to win. The current system punishes good players for bad team mates. Just wanting to make it more fair.
  5. I have to disagree. You could be an amazing player and still not earn your star because you ended up with 3 - 6 potatoes as team mates. This system would alleviate that by evaluating an individual's performance rather than the team's. You want that go to Random or Clan Battles. That's what they're there for. For me (as I've stated several times) Ranked should be rewarding or punishing me for MY capabilities or lack thereof. It's not "Team Ranking". I'm not with the same team every single game so it's a moot point to make it truly a team affair. I've stated that. But that threshold is for the current game. Let's say in a BB I have to do 100,000 damage to get the star, if I manage it I can rank up, if not I lose one. The next match would have something different. If you really want to make it about team play (which you shouldn't as you're not ranking with a team but yourself). As a team get a cap and hold it uninterrupted for 6 minutes. If your team can manage that everyone gets a star. I don't see why this is such an issue.
  6. Then how about this.... if your team wins you get another star. so you can at max get 2 stars in the match. Players can get 1 star (win or lose) for meeting some goal in the match. So players don't miss out because of bad teams. Players can get another star for winning. To make it even: Players that don't win or meet their goals lose 2 stars. But there's a couple more irrevocable ranks.
  7. Except this game has a rank mode and therefore needs to properly rank players based on skill and not because you were lucky enough to get a good team. Because that's what Random Battles and Clan Battles are for. This is RANKING. It's not fair to good players that have bad luck with crap teams that they can't rank because of matchmaking. A player should be ranked based on their own skill. Farmers can still farm damage if that's their prerogative but other players shouldn't be punished for it.
  8. By playing smarter? Sounds easy enough. *EDIT* by this I mean don't get yourself separated from your group unless absolutely necessary or stick with another DD if there is one.
  9. Let's face it. Rank matches are not even Ranking you as a player but as a team. When I think Rank I think how well I - as a player - did. The current system catches NONE of what ranking should be. It's random battles but you get a reward for not getting a crapteam. You can do an amazing job but still be unable to rank up because you can't carry by yourself (not saying I'm this good but I've had 1 or 2 matches here and there where this happens). So what am I proposing as a replacement? A Rank mode that measures your INDIVIDUAL abilities in a match (got this idea from the Personal Missions). How would this work? You're given a mission or damage threshold or other tasks you need to meet in order to rank up. If you meet it, you earn your star. You don't meet it, you lose a star. Similar to personal missions it could be "Do this much damage" or "Capture this many objectives" depending on your ship type. You can take it a step further that you have to do a combination of these missions to rank. How would this help? It forces players to engage aggressively in an attempt to earn their star. Even if you lose you can still earn your star because of your performance (which is what RANKING IS ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO BE). It won't be nearly as frustrating since it'll only be your fault if you fail your missions. What do you guys think? How would you do this if given the chance?
  10. RedDragonEmporer

    Received a warning for modifications??

    Alright so I'll close it when playing.
  11. RedDragonEmporer

    Received a warning for modifications??

    So that was a load of nothing. they closed the ticket without letting me respond. It's a clean install as I replaced my hardware so they're keeping the strike on my account. I don't use mods and I havent used Aslains in forever and it's a fresh OS/game install. Kinda upset they closed it without letting me give further input. *EDIT* They can't even tell me what mod I'm supposedly using (which more than likely im not.
  12. RedDragonEmporer

    Received a warning for modifications??

    Yes, I do have GeForce Experience.
  13. RedDragonEmporer

    Received a warning for modifications??

    It's a 64-bit system. For tickets what's a good category for it?
  14. RedDragonEmporer

    Received a warning for modifications??

    Windows 7. Only thing I have open other than WoWs is Firefox and TeamSpeak.
  15. So imagine my surprise when I logged on today to find the following message. I have never used any modifications other than Aslain's. Which I haven't used since October. I have been waiting patiently for this email and I have't received it yet. Is it possible it's a false flag?