Jump to content

SyndicatedINC

Members
  • Content count

    1,610
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    8478
  • Clan

    [PLPT]

Community Reputation

568 Excellent

About SyndicatedINC

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.pelagicpirates.org

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Everyone's a monster to someone

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

1,022 profile views
  1. Who have you seen in game

    Thank you, well played to you as well.
  2. I disagree with this part of your statement (the rest of your post, yes, I pretty much agree with). The bottom line is that it is WG which charges doubloons for respecs, and it is WG that is making the change to the captains/ships/tiers. Given that the players could build this optional build in a manner that they may or may not have if the ship was in a different tier/configuration if WG is changing it, then it is on WG to not to push the cost of adjustments on the player, even if the player mad e a bad build. If the line split was optional then yes, it would be on the player if they so chose to use that option if it breaks their build. The player however is not being given a choice. It is like when their is a product recall for an automobile. When I had optional trim added to my car by the factory upon purchase, and a recall meant the trim was no longer compatible, the onus was on the manufacturer to replace the trim at no cost to me, as it was THEIR change which negated my optional purchase. Doesn't matter that my wife hated the optional trim as ugly.
  3. Wombat, I hate to be "that guy" but there is no sample size attached to your poll. Are we talking all-time or 2 weeks? I have seen some very spurious claims about WR for a specific ship when the sample size was epically tiny. Bismark for example over a million games with the current rules and changes affecting it, probably means the WR is very relevant. However the first 2 weeks of the flint, when it had only been given to a handful of folks and had <2k games played. Well people screamed bloody murder about its ~70% win rate. Context matters, a LOT!
  4. *sigh* Is this the WG equivalent of Yanny/Laurel or Blue&Black/White&Gold? So captain spec'ed for a light cruiser moves to a heavy and captain spec'ed for heavy moves to light? again *sigh* Indeed, precisely the problem.
  5. Cap contesting/point denial ribbons/XP

    I think you are mixing up the two different threads. Ju87s is suggesting an XP earning change. By nature that would mean a universal change (ie to Co-Op, Random, and Ranked).
  6. Request: Forgiveness ability

    Not a terrible idea, there are two issues I could see with this though. First is that many folks don't know about the compliment and report systems. Second is that they are limited in number. A player who is new/low on karma only gets 7 compliments a day. One great match and those are gone for the day for me.
  7. Request: Forgiveness ability

    +1 great idea OP
  8. Let's Battle Tour 2018?

    Possibly, that would suck :-(
  9. Cap contesting/point denial ribbons/XP

    Great idea OP a +1 to you. Maybe make it based off of capture/denied. As in for every tick you hold says 90% of the cap points but are contested you get some portion of what you would have if the cap completed. Likewise if the enemy has 90% of a cap and you get on to contest, then for every tick you get some portion of credit for reset as you would if you reset them. Needs to be proportional though to prevent XP farming by sitting on cap being worth more than actually capping/resetting. Maybe say like 10% value the amounts for each tick. That way one of those fights that goes on for 10 minutes is still rewarded heavily. But simply spending a minute sitting on cap NOT resetting someone won't generate any more XP than if you simply had reset them at the start of it.
  10. So the cleveland captain stays with the cleveland (moving to tier 8)?
  11. Seeing so many ranked complaints again

    That is literally the suggestion. For example taking myself. The last 10 games of ranked I played I won 7 and lost 3 (2 of them with top XP on losing team). So I net gained 6 stars. However if using this system, one of those losses I had the highest score of the match (thus would have gained a star on that), but was only in the top 7 overall on XP in 4 of the wins, thus would have gained only 4 stars from wins. On both the other losses I was top 7 overall on XP so would have lost no stars. Thus my net gain would have been less (5 stars) but it would have been entirely up or stay. That is the point, this makes it take longer fro most people to gain stars, but makes it harder to lose stars when playing at or below your skill level. The result is you play the same or more games on average to go up in rank, but you rarely go down a rank, and nearly never go down multiple ranks. The entire going from Rank 3 back to Rank 8 then climbing back to rank 4 in a bad weekend would be done away with. A bad weekend would mean going from Rank 3 to rank 4, or just going from Rank 3 with 4 stars down to rank 3 with zero stars.
  12. Seeing so many ranked complaints again

    Agreed, thus this suggestion to change the star scoring. Currently someone who has hit their skill ceiling has every incentive to simply stop playing further ranked games (which is contrary to what WG wants), as the current system can find them easily running into a bad streak and slipping back many ranks down to a point that is lower than their actual skill. Less movement would limit this effect (essentially hiding the outliers more) and allow peopel to continue to play at the skill level they should be at. The result is less player frustration thus more inclination to play more (which is good for players and WG).
  13. Seeing so many ranked complaints again

    Not saying this in a nasty way, but rank 13 is not even halfway thru the star count. You are doing well because you have a ship well suited for it and are at a low level. The majority of ranked (ie rank 10-2) it is not so simple. Doing good doesnt mean keeping a star, because someone else is going to do great (and the other 5 are going to potato). Most losses mean a lost star, even if you were the second best player in the entire match across both teams. This creates frustration and people quit, which is exactly the problem. WG wants people playing the mode more. Instead the method means people play it less. They get to rank 10 or 5 and stop.
  14. Seeing so many ranked complaints again

    I can understand how you come to the conclusion. If you look at it closer however playing with inconsistent skill would still tend to level off the yo-yo effect. Some games a player screwing up would win but no longer gain a star or rank with this method. Likewise some games they play well but get a weak team, they would not lose a star. It would be mostly only when they play bad consistently AND worse than their team that they would drop rank, or when they play well consistently and better than their team that they would move up. True, that is why I suggest this method, as it would still mean many players have to play as much as they do now to get to the ranks they do. Just minus the frustrating yo-yo that often seems to be a reason cited when people quit playing ranked. In other words WG doesnt lose out on their revenue.
  15. Seeing so many ranked complaints again

    A valid point, but more to the line that certain ships have been "keep a star" machines due to their XP bonus ratio (we all remember the Sims in tier 7 ranked). As to ranking out, 5th on a winning team would still likely mean a star gain. That isn't to say that the XP system especially in ranked can't also be adjusted.
×