Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

1,507 Superb


About SyndicatedINC

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Birthday 07/03/1978
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Everyone's a monster to someone

Recent Profile Visitors

2,150 profile views
  1. Or top 2 or even 3..... in ranked..... *smh*
  2. This. It truly is an intended feature and not a bug.
  3. SyndicatedINC

    Farewell URL Guy

    There was never a more appropriate time for this meme. Farewell URLguy, you shall forever be missed and the game just won't be the same without you.
  4. SyndicatedINC

    DO NOT abuse the Report system

    ^ This
  5. SyndicatedINC

    What Creates this Result?

    camo-less premium ships..... *facepalm*
  6. SyndicatedINC

    What Creates this Result?

    ^ This Game mechanics themselves favor a snowball effect, and if RNGesus or team play is not dishing these events out evenly throuhgout the battle it will roll up into an avalanche one way or the other.
  7. SyndicatedINC

    (???????) is ruining the game

    The BB the puts out a single fire in front of an enemy Smolensk, and gets away with it, going its full cooldown without getting RNG starting another fire. Sometimes that player is ruined for life. Here on out they are always goign to put out the first fire, because it worked that one time. Likewise that cruiser who got an AP citadel on a BB one time and not understanding the specifics of the angle, range, tier, etc, now only shoots AP at the BB because hey it worked that one time. Humans are very bad at causation and correlation. It leads to very bad play. Every once in awhile someone suggest a few improvements such as making your first 30 seconds after DC guarantee 100% chance of fire if you extinguished a single fire, but ultimately it is a bandaid on a bullet hole. There will always be something that is the "it worked that one time" moment.
  8. SyndicatedINC

    Getting good Wiki

    Hello Femennenly, I realize that a lot of this is another department, however I believe part of the problem is that ships are changing right up until release. I can only imagine the wiki editors reaction to ships that had consumables, modules, and upgrades added/removed between the pre-release version they got to look over and the released version. I mean looking back over the game history there have been some massive changes to ships between pre and post release versions. Which while reasonable, it might be beneficial if development cycles could be pushed forward an extra cycle so there is a new step in between finalizing the release version and the actual release. Say two weeks that the wiki editors have the ship in the release version to look over before release. It seems part of the problem from the wiki editors is that the ships are not final until release day.
  9. ONLY 200 or 300. I recall at one point my queue count passed 1k BBs while waiting for a battle, almost every battle played on day 1 was 800+ BBs, even up to tier 8. Much fun and interesting battles that was *heavy sarcasm*
  10. SyndicatedINC

    When "Permanent" Cammo is taken away by WarGaming

    Negative. The indicator for prior to the CV rework denotes the old ship. A current ship has no such denotation.
  11. Correct, and all the complaining posts and threads is part of the market response from players who do not find the certainty worth the increased cost. They are neither correct nor incorrect, they are expressing opinion. What can be labeled as either correct or incorrect is the cost comparison based on the mean averages and hard numbers. The previous such EA events had expected mean costs somewhere around either comparable to higher than tech tree equivalents but lower or equal to premium equivalents. Essentially charging premium ship prices for EA benefit rather than premium ship benefit. The market seemed to accept that though had complaints about the uncertainty. This event has mean costs closer to 3 times the old costs but removes the uncertainty. Yes some will pay much less, and with the uncertainty removed no one will be paying more, whereas the old way some paid less and some paid much more.
  12. I believe that you may have misinterpreted my comments. I was not making claim that WG is charging only doubloons for tech tree ships nor that we are obliged to buy them. What I was stating is that WG has turned an EA event designed to keep the 1k of same ship class/tier in queue at same time on launch day issue at bay into a monetization event for themselves. Which is fine, they are a business afterall and this is a FTP game. I am also stating that WG is obliging the impatient player to spend 3 times what most of them had to spend to get everything on day 1 back during the Richelieu. They are not requiring us all to spend that, of course not. Yes we can just wait and get them as normal tech tree ships are obtained. I intend to do just that myself. However the ire presented by many players at a tripling of an item price is a reasonable customer reaction for those customers who have traditionally chosen to buy said product. Most don't feel that the trade-off of a guarantee vs random is worth the notional cost increase.