Jump to content

RedDragonEmporer

Supertester
  • Content Сount

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6450
  • Clan

    [LWS]

Community Reputation

20 Neutral

About RedDragonEmporer

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Birthday 06/29/1990
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • 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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. RedDragonEmporer

    Received a warning for modifications??

    Alright so I'll close it when playing.
  9. 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.
  10. RedDragonEmporer

    Received a warning for modifications??

    Yes, I do have GeForce Experience.
  11. RedDragonEmporer

    Received a warning for modifications??

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

    Received a warning for modifications??

    Windows 7. Only thing I have open other than WoWs is Firefox and TeamSpeak.
  13. 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?
  14. RedDragonEmporer

    CV need alpha strike back

    Dude, I've played both styles and I play the new style a lot so I know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what I think from both being attacked by CVs and attacking with CVs. I've gotten many good games and a couple bad ones. 1. My attack squadron being less by 1 idea is the fact a lot of CV players are firing the first squadron to send one back to reserves so you can save the amount of planes you have. I do it too to protect my squadrons. 2. Cool downs are the consumables. What i'm talking about is when your torpedo planes come back there's a specific amount of time that must pass before you can send another set of torpedo planes and a countdown before you can send your very first squadron out like they did in the old style. 3. I think you should watch your tone a bit since you clearly don't know what you're talking about when it comes to if I play CVs or not. Which I do.
  15. RedDragonEmporer

    CV need alpha strike back

    If I might interject here. I love the new style. The issues I have is a T6 Carrier against T8 AA or T8 vs T10 AA. It's not fun. What they need to do is 3 things: 1. Make squadrons smaller by 1. So instead of 3 attack runs, you can only do 2. 2. Increase damage on torpedos and rockets. 3. Add a cool down for squadrons like we used to have. Force us to wait while they rearm the squadrons. That's really what CVs need. A mix of the old RTS with the new style. (This includes let's say a 30 second cool down before the first squadron can be sent out at the start of the match.
×