Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

227 Valued poster

About mushmouthmorton

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

942 profile views
  1. This is not new. PVE has always had lower rewards than PVP. Wargaming would like nothing better than to drive everyone out of PVE and then shut it down. But they don't dare because their own numbers show that a very large percentage (20 to 40% - your guess is as good as mine) are for all intents and purposes exclusively PVE players. I'm one of them, with over 90% of my games played in PVE. But we still spend money, a lot of money in some cases, and WG is not about to lose that big a chunk of their revenue stream. Making money in coop is not always easy, but it can be done, even if you refuse to spend a dime. If you are determined to "play for free". then you need to play a LOT of T5-T7 in order to pay for your play at higher tiers. I used to have to play 5-7 games at those tiers for every T10 game I played. I got tired of that after a bit and did the following 1. Joined a clan. - The bonuses do add up. 2. Bought my Premium time on sale at Christmas for 50% off 3. Bit the bullet and bought premium cammo for my t8's and above. I still have to play a lot of games to keep the credits flowing, but with PVE games being so short, I can usually play 3 PVE games in the time it takes to play one PVP. So the rewards tend to even out.
  2. mushmouthmorton

    How Low Can You Go? (HP that is)

    Beats me! Do we hear 4?
  3. Just finished a game in my Des Moines. I was shooting at a C. Martel and just nicked the mainmast on a green Mogami. The CM was in the process of torping said Mogami, and my shells arrived just in time to supply the final 13 HP needed to bring it's health pool to ZERO! So here I am, Pink again, over a lousy 13 HP. I realize it's just 2 games, and who really cares. But lets see some stories of how FEW hp damage you can inflict on one of your teammates and get turned pink because of it See you all later - off to play my two games of shame!
  4. mushmouthmorton

    Another ship setting sail...

    Thank you for all the replies and the hard work. Best of luck to you and smooth sailing
  5. mushmouthmorton

    running away

    As I said in my post - when the bots are tuned up and hot, you can get your head handed to you on a platter. Bots have "advantages" that on a particular day can leave you with a sinking ship saying "what the F*** just happened?"
  6. mushmouthmorton

    running away

    Come on over to Co-op. Charging in is what we do. Less people, less stress, shorter games (ok - sometimes TOO short) but overall, a lot more fun. Yes the rewards are smaller, but you can play 2-3 coops in the time it takes to play one random. It evens out. And don't believe all the guff about "no challenge". Sure there are times the bots are just brain dead. But there are other times they come in hot and tuned up and they will hand you your head on a platter if you make the slightest error. Give it a try - you might like it.
  7. mushmouthmorton

    Borrowing radio mechanic from WOT?

    I thank you for the comments. I would like to discuss the idea that airplanes developed firing solutions for a ship that was not in visual or radar contact with the target. In the period we are discussing, fire control up say 1945-50, GPS, NTDS, data links and other technology we take for granted today did not exist. That led to two different scenarios for over the horizon shooting with aircraft support. 1. Firing at targets on land - Here the spotter plane would relay a map reference to the ship, and the ship would calculate the firing solution based on the ships position as given by the navigation department. Since the fire support ship was normally within sight of land (but not the target), the ships position could be figured with reasonable accuracy. The ship would fire a ranging shot, adjustments would be radioed to the ship, and when on target, firing would commence. Given that the map reference is quite accurate and the ship position is fairly accurate, fire could be brought in fairly quickly. 2. Firing at targets at sea - My first point is that I am not aware of any time that a battle was fought, or guns even fired, when the targets were not in visual or radar range. For example, at the Battle of Surigao Straight, Japanese ships were spotted on destroyers radar before they were spotted on the battleships radar. The Japanese column was within the theoretical range of the guns of the battleships, but until the BB's had a target on their own radar they could not fire. One battleship in the gun line, the USS Pennsylvania, was not able to acquire the ships, and never fired a shot. My second point is that on the open sea, away from land, navigation then was as much art as science. Errors in position by miles were quite common. Now that's on a ship. Navigation in an aircraft was MUCH harder. Errors in reported target positions by scouting aircraft during WWII was often off by 10's of miles. Sitting in the back seat of a observation plane, dodging AA, going in and out of clouds and maneuvering, trying to figure out your position relative to your own ship is a real challenge. And then you want the observer to spot the enemy ship, figure an accurate bearing and distance from the plane to the target, then calculate the current position of the firing ship, do all the math, send the distance, and bearing of the target ship along with an accurate speed and heading, to the mother ship that then fires a salvo that is right on target? IMPOSSIBLE!!!! In reality, a spotter plane could correct fire, and bring the guns on target faster than the ship could by visual observation. But there was no way, in that time period, that a spotter aircraft could call fire on a target ship that was not spotted by the firing ship first. This is my basis for saying that IRL, this never happened.
  8. mushmouthmorton

    Borrowing radio mechanic from WOT?

    Your suggestion is a variation on a theme that ha been suggested for some time. Unless red ship is actually being spotted by your ship, by whatever means (radar, hydro. LOS), it should only show on the minimap. I''m all for it, because the idea that one ship can develop a complete firing solution for another ship clean across the map is ridiculous. It does not happen IRL, and should not happen in the game, even if it an "arcade game"not a "simulation". .
  9. Sorry - I beg to differ. Long range +20K shots are not high percentage, but they do happen, Took out a carrier at 22K with plunging fire yesterday in my Yammy. It was at 25% health, 1 salvo, 3 hits, one cit and BOOM! During the last clan wars season, there was this Moskova. I say was because all it took was one salvo, at max range from my Monty. It happened 35 seconds into the match. The red team never recovered. So yes - it can be done!
  10. In general I agree with the tone of your post. It was a wonderful idea, the graphics are great and need to be preserved and reused, and as an event it could be a lot of fun. BUT! The directives XP and damage levels were nuts, and the time that was allowed to do the directives was positively insane!. The real damage was done by two things: 1. The VERY poorly written and hugely complicated instructions, which prevented many people from actually understanding what they were getting into. 2. The hidden cost that awaited those who chose to spend the gold to buy the 3 boosters. Having spent all that gold, only to see a HUGE additional fee pop up was absolutely WRONG! The "refund" system did not make up for all the pain that was caused and all the goodwill that will never, ever return. Wargaming does not seem to have heard us, and probably will not pay attention, until their bottom line starts looking the the Titanic's course on the way to the bottom.
  11. mushmouthmorton

    Greatest dumpster fire in Wargaming's history

    The event was poorly thought out and the presentation was even worse. The most damaging part of it was that the newer players who trusted Wargaming to have a fair and reasonable Christmas Event were the ones that got hurt the worst. These were the people who did not think they HAD to read all the confusing documentation to understand the event. These were the people who listened to the early reviews from the CCs who were reporting on what they had seen in the test server, After all, this is a game! Who would run a deceptive contest at Christmas? That is what really hurts. What Wargaming did with this event was wrong! They need to acknowledge their mistakes and make a real apology. As far as I can tell, that has not happened, and any trust this player base has had in WG is leaking out faster than a battleships HP with 3 floodings, 2 fires and no repair in sight!
  12. mushmouthmorton

    Anybody download tanks then never play it?

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This
  13. mushmouthmorton

    Eliminate the Standard Game mode.

    As for the point of the Standard Battle game mode - It's "Capture the Flag" - nothing hard to understand there WG - Please DO NOT get rid of this game mode. In co-op, this mode keeps the game going because the bots keep getting points added to the score. It's the only time we really get to farm the bots. In standard domination, the games end WAAAAY too early.
  14. mushmouthmorton

    I got a new appreciation for you upper tier guys

    You sound like a player who would do well in co-op. While you need to have some situational awareness in order not to get steam rolled by a group of hyper aggressive bots, you can in general play in a much more aggressive, offensive style, which I find to be a lot of fun . Yes, the rewards are smaller, and the "mercy rule" ends games far too fast, too often, but for all of that, it's still a lot more fun than cowering behind a rock waiting for the rest of the team to grow a pair. Try it, you may like it!
  15. mushmouthmorton

    Puerto Rico - So Confused, please explain

    Not sure it will work - but put in a ticket. WG was issuing partial refunds earlier