Jump to content

Thirsty13_CCW

Members
  • Content Сount

    224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [TF-62]

Community Reputation

233 Valued poster

About Thirsty13_CCW

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

853 profile views
  1. I expected that WG would actually produce a new system that was an improvement and In which the jump from 19 to 21 wasn’t beyond astronomical. I expected skills that actually would offer diversity of build. I did not expect that WG would take a lot of existing skills and split them up such that 19 pt builds are now 21 point builds FOR THE SAME SKILLS. I did not expect WG to use the capt skill rework as a massive stealth nerf to a wide swath of premium ships. I did not expect them to totally trash BB secondary builds. I did not expect them to produce a blatant and obvious bold faced cash grab. I did not expect a rework that would actively have me wondering whether or not I should stop playing the game. Because the effort to respec commanders for even just my top 25 or 30 ships is going to consume a ton of time. Not to mention having to figure out which skills are ideal. I did not expect all the work over the years I’ve played to get 19pt Captains and build up a reserve of Elite Capt XP would be flushed down the drain by the insane number of points required to go from 19 to 21. But really it’s all my fault. I’ve played the game long enough that I should have expected all of the above. I should have known that WH never misses a chance to screw the game up and ignore it’s player base.
  2. Thirsty13_CCW

    Commander Skills Update

    And Atlanta already got a reload Buff that Flint didn't. So this is a second hit to a ship that came very very dearly for most. Being earned originally only through multiple seasons of ranking out and then being one of the first steel ships when steel was an even more difficult to acquire resource. It's a true slap in the face. Especially for a ship that already has a very high skill floor and has already suffered from major power creep as the game has evolved.
  3. Thirsty13_CCW

    Commander Skills Update

    Hey @Hapa_Fodder remember when you swore prior to the PTS that the Commander skills rework was not a done deal? Pepperidge Farm remembers. It's quite apparent that as usual WG cooked up an idea, doesn't care how much of a dumpster fire it is, and is going to go ahead and shove it forward anyway because Mother Russia always knows best. Meanwhile WG continues to ignore real enhancements to the game asked for by players and real chances to give players what they want (Ahem... WV44) while concocting ideas that EVERYONE is telling you will not promote good gameplay. Yeah SAP in cruisers has been soo much fun so lets add it to Battleships!!! Look the basic concept of trying to add variability in commander skill builds was a good one. The problem is that WG haven't done that. What WG have really done is turned 19 point builds into 21 point builds by taking skills and splitting them up. WG has stealth nerfed a ton of premium ships by stripping skills away that had been baked into how they were balanced and of course cooked up new names for old skills that didn't change just to help make it seem like something had changed. PS. Hey WG if your going to ask for feedback try actually listening. It might take ,longer and be messier but the end product will be better and more profitable for you.
  4. Thirsty13_CCW

    Developer Bulletin for Update 0.10.0

    @Hapa_Fodder A question. When the update drops that makes the new Captain skills system go live what happens to all of our existing commanders? I presume their ship specializations won’t change but what about their existing skills? Is every Captain going to have all of his skills removed by default such that he has them all converted back into Captain XP?
  5. Thirsty13_CCW

    PTS 0.10.0

    After Multiple games with an all in secondary German BB build its apparent to me that both the number of hits and the damage output from your secondary guns are off significantly. This is true even when both sides are engaged at close range. There will certainly if this goes forward be a lot more diversity in Captain builds, But I see little indication that its really going to change much in terms of game play even between people with very different builds. My initial impressions that a lot of ships are going to have their balance affected remains steady and that to me is a major fail.
  6. Thirsty13_CCW

    Commander Skills Dev Blog Announcement 12-16-20

    Well the PTS and the DevBlog are not in alignment. For example NC base secondary range is still 5km.
  7. Thirsty13_CCW

    Commander Skills Dev Blog Announcement 12-16-20

    Maime is the USS Massachusetts a T8 secondary focus Premium US BB.
  8. This is precisely who this is going to hit and hurt the most. Those who like to play competitive game modes. Because in those modes the margins are close enough that you truly need to min/max everything because you know your competition will have done so. WG is essentially punishing the people most invested in the game.
  9. Thirsty13_CCW

    PTS 0.10.0

    Lets talk about some of the more troubling aspects of the commander skills rework. And I'm just going to scratch the surface a bit. What this looks like to me is a massive nerf of of a large number of premium ships. For example the Super Cruisers were balanced around the existing commander skills and removing things like fire prevention from them is in fact a nerf to those ships. Commander skills didn't bypass their fire vulnerability they were implied in their builds and balancing. The end result here is a significant nerf to the Super Cruisers. Lets talk about Atlanta/Flint Smolensk, Colbert. There is no need to wait and "check their efficiency" as its perfectly obvious what affect this will have one those ships. Your nerfing them plain and simple. I think we also need to talk about Atlanta/Flint. Now Atlanta already has been given a reload buff over Flint and has 2 more guns per side. Atlanta also has better AA than Flint even though she has the 1.1s and Flint has Bofors. And now your increasing her range (as you should) but leaving Flint untouched?? Both are premium ships but Flint was acquired as a steel ship for the vast majority of people. Flint was supposed to be an Atlanta which traded the wing 5" turrets and Radar for smoke and Long Range Torpedo's. The CV rework was the first major nerf of these ships as their once devastating AA firepower got nerfed to oblivion and now your applying a major nerf to Flint because her gun range is being shortened compared to Atlanta. I would also note that you should expect Flint to have better stats in game than Atlanta given how hard she has historically been to obtain. Which means the skill base of her owners (many of whom I suspect also own Atlanta) is going to be significantly greater. Smolensk and Colbert similarly (Colbert especially) were ships acquired with scarce hard to earn resources and deserve better than to be subject to major nerfs. There may not be a lot of cruisers that can use a secondary build but that doesn't change the fact that it should be there as an element of player choice. ESPECIALLY if your goal is to create more than one viable build per ship. Lets also talk about secondary ranges for Battleships. Based on the Dev Blog Alabama is getting her secondaries buffed from 5km base range to 6.6km a very significant increase. Maime by contrast despite losing a major part of what made her a good ship (her secondary accuracy with a full build) isn't getting any buffs to her base numbers. When you consider the accuracy of normal secondaries at long range the loss of the ability to buff that accuracy is a HUGE nerf to ships like Maime, Ohio, etc. And these premium ships are getting nerfed at the same time your buffing other ships by given them an automatiuc range boost. As I've said I'm just scratching the surface on this. But let me condense down my major concern to bullet points. 1.) As the skill tree has been presented I see little sign that you've created the option for multiple strongly viable commander builds for the same ship. Any more than it already existed. Which if true makes your central given for the rework a fail. 2.) The rework is in fact serving to significantly nerf a very large number of premium ships across multiple classes. This is wrong. Finally there are much better ways to both get more money and improve the game. You might start by listening to what players are telling you they want.
  10. Thirsty13_CCW

    Developer Bulletin for Update 0.10.0

    When you consider the number of ship lines and the variance in those lines themselves along with other changes being made at the same time the free doubloons and reduced retraining costs really are not going to allow significant experimentation for free by those inclined to do so. The poster is correct. What should have happened was to allow unlimited retraining and movement of Captains for an extended period especially given that there are likely to be significant changes post implementation.
  11. Now lets talk about some of the more troubling aspects of the commander skills rework. And I'm just going to scratch the surface a bit. What this looks like to me is a massive nerf of of a large number of premium ships. For example the Super Cruisers were balanced around the existing commander skills and removing things like fire prevention from them is in fact a nerf to those ships. Commander skills didn't bypass their fire vulnerability they were implied in their builds and balancing. The end result here is a significant nerf to the Super Cruisers. Lets talk about Atlanta/Flint Smolensk, Colbert. There is no need to wait and "check their efficiency" as its perfectly obvious what affect this will have one those ships. Your nerfing them plain and simple. I think we also need to talk about Atlanta/Flint. Now Atlanta already has been given a reload buff over Flint and has 2 more guns per side. Atlanta also has better AA than Flint even though she has the 1.1s and Flint has Bofors. And now your increasing her range (as you should) but leaving Flint untouched?? Both are premium ships but Flint was acquired as a steel ship for the vast majority of people. Flint was supposed to be an Atlanta which traded the wing 5" turrets and Radar for smoke and Long Range Torpedo's. The CV rework was the first major nerf of these ships as their once devastating AA firepower got nerfed to oblivion and now your applying a major nerf to Flint because her gun range is being shortened compared to Atlanta. I would also note that you should expect Flint to have better stats in game than Atlanta given how hard she has historically been to obtain. Which means the skill base of her owners (many of whom I suspect also own Atlanta) is going to be significantly greater. Smolensk and Colbert similarly (Colbert especially) were ships acquired with scarce hard to earn resources and deserve better than to be subject to major nerfs. There may not be a lot of cruisers that can use a secondary build but that doesn't change the fact that it should be there as an element of player choice. ESPECIALLY if your goal is to create more than one viable build per ship. Lets also talk about secondary ranges for Battleships. Based on the Dev Blog Alabama is getting her secondaries buffed from 5km base range to 6.6km a very significant increase. Maime by contrast despite losing a major part of what made her a good ship (her secondary accuracy with a full build) isn't getting any buffs to her base numbers. When you consider the accuracy of normal secondaries at long range the loss of the ability to buff that accuracy is a HUGE neref to ships like Maime, Ohio, etc. And these premium ships are getting nerfed at the same time your buffing other ships by given them an automatiuc range boost. As I've said I'm just scratching the surface on this. But let me condense down my major concern to bullet points. 1.) As the skill tree has been presented I see little sign that you've created the option for multiple strongly viable commander builds for the same ship. Any more than it already existed. Which if true makes your central given for the rework a fail. 2.) The rework is in fact serving to significantly nerf a very large number of premium ships across multiple classes. This is wrong. Finally there are much better ways to both get more money and improve the game. You might start by listening to what players are telling you they want.
  12. So a topic got opened on this but apparently a "volunteer moderator" one @LancerUlysses decided that he didn't like it an shut it down almost immediately. Lets start by looking at some of what he said and then turn to the dev blog itself. "So folk seem to be arguing about a preliminary announcement about a system that will not be implemented for some time. Some facts: The rework isn't final and in fact, may not happen, and if it does happen, may not resemble what has been described. Before the rework happens, WG will eventually put a more finished version up on the PTS for everyone to try out, and will be looking for feedback, as they always do, and the community will have an opportunity to shape the final version. While it is fine to have a level-headed discussion about what the final rework will be like, and a wish list of features folk would like to see added or modified, posting threads merely to remark that 'the sky is falling' are probably going to be shut down, like this one. Sail on by." 1. This isn't a preliminary announcement at all. If you read the DevBlog its clear that this is final and that the PTS is essentially just going through the motions. They fully (like with the CV rework and remember what a dumpster fire that is/was) intend to shove this thing out onto the main server and then start trying to unscrew the mess they have made. 2. "May not happen"????!!! Seriously dude? Your actually going to argue that WG may not go forward with this at all? Do you pay any attention at all to what the paid employees actually announce? 3. There is no more finished version coming first. Again the dev blog makes it pretty clear that what they have now is going to the PTS and then to the live server. The community is going to get the same opportunity to shape the final version they did with the CV rework. Which is to say little to none because EVERYONE was telling them that was going to be a dumpster fire and they would not listen. 4. @Hapa_Fodder I would suggest you the paid employees need to work with your "volunteers". The thread in question didn't have constructive suggestions that true but it was only 5 posts in before it was shut down. If you want constructive feedback then you could 1.) ask, or 2.) Perhaps give people a chance to offer it. Ohh and when your volunteers spout what is clearly utter nonsense it doesn't help either. Now lets turn to some of the more troubling aspects of the commander skills rework. And I'm just going to scratch the surface a bit. What this looks like to me is a massive nerf of of a large number of premium ships. For example the Super Cruisers were balanced around the existing commander skills and removing things like fire prevention from them is in fact a nerf to those ships. Commander skills didn't bypass their fire vulnerability they were implied in their builds and balancing. The end result here is a significant nerf to the Super Cruisers. Lets talk about Atlanta/Flint Smolensk, Colbert. There is no need to wait and "check their efficiency" as its perfectly obvious what affect this will have one those ships. Your nerfing them plain and simple. I think we also need to talk about Atlanta/Flint. Now Atlanta already has been given a reload buff over Flint and has 2 more guns per side. Atlanta also has better AA than Flint even though she has the 1.1s and Flint has Bofors. And now your increasing her range (as you should) but leaving Flint untouched?? Both are premium ships but Flint was acquired as a steel ship for the vast majority of people. Flint was supposed to be an Atlanta which traded the wing 5" turrets and Radar for smoke and Long Range Torpedo's. The CV rework was the first major nerf of these ships as their once devastating AA firepower got nerfed to oblivion and now your applying a major nerf to Flint because her gun range is being shortened compared to Atlanta. I would also note that you should expect Flint to have better stats in game than Atlanta given how hard she has historically been to obtain. Which means the skill base of her owners (many of whom I suspect also own Atlanta) is going to be significantly greater. Smolensk and Colbert similarly (Colbert especially) were ships acquired with scarce hard to earn resources and deserve better than to be subject to major nerfs. There may not be a lot of cruisers that can use a secondary build but that doesn't change the fact that it should be there as an element of player choice. ESPECIALLY if your goal is to create more than one viable build per ship. Lets also talk about secondary ranges for Battleships. Based on the Dev Blog Alabama is getting her secondaries buffed from 5km base range to 6.6km a very significant increase. Maime by contrast despite losing a major part of what made her a good ship (her secondary accuracy with a full build) isn't getting any buffs to her base numbers. When you consider the accuracy of normal secondaries at long range the loss of the ability to buff that accuracy is a HUGE neref to ships like Maime, Ohio, etc. And these premium ships are getting nerfed at the same time your buffing other ships by given them an automatiuc range boost. As I've said I'm just scratching the surface on this. But let me condense down my major concern to bullet points. 1.) As the skill tree has been presented I see little sign that you've created the option for multiple strongly viable commander builds for the same ship. Any more than it already existed. Which if true makes your central given for the rework a fail. 2.) The rework is in fact serving to significantly nerf a very large number of premium ships across multiple classes. This is wrong. Finally there are much better ways to both get more money and improve the game. You might start by listening to what players are telling you they want.
  13. Thirsty13_CCW

    New US BBs..

    OK fair enough... BUT, How freaking out of touch do you have to be to think that what players wanted was an alternate US BB line based on derivations of the standard type with big guns or lots of them but with poor reload and poor accuracy mounted on a 23 knot hull that is designed to melt away as soon as anyone looks at it? Ohh yes and junk secondaries. Not to mention that the Tillman BB's were never intended as serious design proposals. Have they not noticed how popular Maime and Georgia are? Have they not noticed how enjoyable brawling US BB's can be? And or crying out loud if your going to build a T10 with a top speed of 23 knots (which is just beyond insane) it should sure as shooting be able to brawl like no ones business. Ohh and not to mention that ALL of the talk about a USN BB line split was based around getting REAL SHIPS that ACUTALLY EXISTED into the game. Not creating more dumb paper ships. Seriously has WG replaced water with Vodka in their drinking fountains?
  14. Thirsty13_CCW

    Another Fine Example of WG Balans Logic

    @ObnoxiousPotato can you elaborate on the new rules prohibiting discussions of balance or calling WG out that you mention in the video?
  15. Thirsty13_CCW

    CC's about to be censored?

    In his review of the new Russian cruiser Flamu mentions that soon CC's are not going to be allowed to talk about balance. He doesn't go into much detail (Its starts at about the 20:36 point in the video) but it seems clear that there are new rules about to go into effect for CC's that will severely limit their ability to provide truthful commentary. Needless to say this is disconcerting. It looks like WG is trying to put an end to CC's being able to call them out when they do things like creating OP paper Russian ships. I suspect that won't work in the end because attempts to suppress the truth always fail and the net result is usually worse. Just look at Zoup's videos where he called out Russian Bias and then WG ended up looking even more stupid trying to deny it. @LittleWhiteMouse or @NoZoupForYou can you comment on this? @ObnoxiousPotato can you elaborate? @Radar_X @Kami would you care to comment?
×