Jump to content

Big_Blue_Gunner

Members
  • Content Сount

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    10179
  • Clan

    [WSU]

Community Reputation

19 Neutral

About Big_Blue_Gunner

Recent Profile Visitors

469 profile views
  1. Big_Blue_Gunner

    Naval History in Photos: Crossing the Line

    I seriously doubt this tradition still exists in the form most Shellbacks would recognize. To be fair, it could be really brutal if you had made enemies in the wrong places, especially crawling through the gauntlet at the end.
  2. Big_Blue_Gunner

    ST 0.9.10, Italian Battleships

    Add to that it has a 1.3km band of concealment when firing in smoke. The detection range of firing in smoke is 15.1km. It's detection range is 16.4km. Why even bother with smoke at all? At Tiers 7 and 8 the differential is actually WORSE than Tier 10.
  3. Big_Blue_Gunner

    ST 0.9.11, Ranked Battles Overhaul

    At the very least the 'Keep a star in a loss' meta needs to be changed. As was suggested earlier, a MUCH better solution is to award a star to the top player on the losing side. At least that will encourage active participation in all phases of the match. Anything else is putting lipstick on a pig.
  4. Big_Blue_Gunner

    Problems with being chat banned...

    It requires much less effort for you to change your behavior than it does for them to code a filter. A filter that folks would bypass using creative chat anyway. It's not that hard to simply not type crap that will get you banned.
  5. Big_Blue_Gunner

    Problems with being chat banned...

    They have learned to deal with it... by getting you chat banned. You aren't special. No one needs to learn to 'deal' with any of your toxic behaviors.
  6. Big_Blue_Gunner

    ST, hybrids

    I cannot see how anyone is going to want to play these ships but maybe in Co-Op. In order to utilize squadrons a la CVs, the ships will have to be back with the CVs, at the back line. If that's the case, why not just play a CV? Couple that in with the fact that these ships lose half of their main batteries for the flight deck, I fail to see a role that they can fill that isn't better filled by a CV, CA, or BB. Carrying only one squadron, the regen rate of that squadron is going to be either ridiculously slow or the squadrons will be tiny, otherwise they'll have a superior sortie rate than CVs. Some things shouldn't be hybridized.
  7. Big_Blue_Gunner

    ST, hybrids

    No. They stated there will be no autoconsumables.
  8. Big_Blue_Gunner

    Birthday Port - There is a Hidden Code

    You do understand this post is from 2019 correct?
  9. Big_Blue_Gunner

    What research bureau ship should I get?

    Colbert's skill floor is higher than Smolensk. Not having smoke and having a short range means you fight through manueverability or island hump. The shells from the Colbert are closer in flight to US 5" shells than the Russian 5.1" as well, very floaty. The ROF helps with that a tad. I'd recommend picking a ship you can grow into rather than going the glass cannon route.
  10. Big_Blue_Gunner

    I sincerely hope Ms. Mouse gets a HUGE Raise!

    You want @littlewhitemouse to get a raise? Support her on Patreon.
  11. Big_Blue_Gunner

    New Commander System is an echo of navel training centre

    If anything, they're expanding Commander skills and making each section class appropriate is a win in my book. Allowing each commander a skillset for each class is also a win. So now if you have only one max commander, you can grind ecxp on ANY of your premiums without losing effectiveness. Progress is a thing. I think allowing 21 skill points is long overdue. I'm sure we'll see several iterations of the skills as they progress from concept to test. Some of the penalties are kinda steep and my only concern is that they're treating them more like the "Alternate upgrades" on the ships rather than true skills.
  12. Big_Blue_Gunner

    DD's are OP

    The Colbert is a CL, not a DD. Same for the Smolensk. So are CLs OP now rather than DDs? If you maintain situational awareness you can remain out of range of the HE spammers. If you push early without knowing where they are located, you're going to get burned. We've been dealing with ships of that nature for... 4 years now? Since the Atlanta and Flint.
  13. Big_Blue_Gunner

    Pace and legnth

    The CV debacle is just that. I cannot see them either going back to the old system or removing CVs from the game again for another rework. Like it or not, what you see is what we're getting. I hope that the incorporation of submarines does not prove to be as unbalanced when they arrive. New content is how you keep players long term. If you stagnate, folks max out, get bored, and leave. If you don't play CBs, what reason is there to play the same lines at T10 over and over again? The game has to remain fresh. New premium ships is how they make money. The game is free to play, but the developers aren't working on charity and hardware to support the game isn't free. They make balance changes based on data gathered during testing and monitor performance as time goes on. From what I've experienced during my 5 years of this game is that changes are generally small to maintain balance. There has been some power creep to this game, relegating older powerful classes not nearly as powerful as they once were (see Khaborovsk and Yue Yang), but there aren't any ships that are unplayable due to being so badly overmatched at their tier compared to others at that same tier. So WG is providing new content for those who desire such and they are maintaining existing content to provide for the long term health of the game. That's pretty much exactly what I would expect them to do. Unfortunately they cannot make everyone happy, so changes are going to occur that some disagree with, but I challenge anyone to make the perfect game without any negative feedback. If you want to see the effect of power creep in an extreme enviroment, look at WoT prior to the latest tech tree revision. They removed probably two dozen tanks that were totally made obselete by new lines and premiums. WoWS, imo, has done a remarkable job in minimizing this problem.
  14. Big_Blue_Gunner

    Remove CO-OP mode

    It takes longer matches for DDs and especially CLs and CAs to match the alpha of BBs. Since smaller ships need to stack fires and flooding to get their damage up, in a co-op match that rarely lasts beyond 5 minutes, the high alpha ships are going to rule. In randoms you see that even out considerably, with cruisers and destroyer placing at the top by the end of the match. Another aspect is that you're over estimating damage as the end all of stats. In randoms taking and denying caps is very important, and large xp earning activities. DDs, and to a lesser extent CA/Ls are the most equipped classes to do this, so the xp gap narrows. I believe WoWS balances ships by their performance in PVP rather than PVE. They've stated that PVE is not a focus for them previously, much to the chagrin of the folks who enjoy PVE. So you're going to see classes of ships that excel in PVE and ones that simply aren't as effective at such since they're not balanced with that in mind to begin with. An extreme example of a pretty useless PVE ship would be Asashio imo, way too dependent on torps with a very long reload time. In randoms, Asashios can dominate a match with their tiny detection range and the 20 minute match ensures they have time to get their torps into the mix.
  15. They punished clans for sharing accounts. Namely steel farming by letting clan mates play their account. The angle for abuse will be paying for play via dubloon gifts. The larger question is going to be how many mercs you can add to a division. If it's one, maybe two, it won't be nearly as unbalancing as it will be if it's unlimited. If it's unlimited, you're going to see one man "elite" clans that will use mercs to bring the best of the best into super-teams.
×