Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

106 Valued poster

About Phasferous

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

639 profile views
  1. Phasferous

    Some good news. Finally

    Props to you in saying this. Well put and well stated for sure.
  2. Phasferous

    Some good news. Finally

    This entire post comes across as standoffish and pretty condescending. So what you are telling me is that the multiple factual and educational studies done on this topic are all wrong and your one, very opinionated post, is the only right here?
  3. Phasferous

    Some good news. Finally

    Redirecting the conversation away from the topic is how serious issues never get resolved. Parents being bad parents isn't the subject matter here and never was. And I really doubt you want to open that can of worms because that's a rabbit hole no one can see the bottom of. There's no international "standard" on how to be a good parent and it changes based on not only the people but the culture of where you live. Even within the same country. And for the record, adults suffer from gambling additions just as much as unaware and under developer kids can be. Blaming the parents for the full fault of this is anything but naive. This is a old and dead excuse that I am surprised people still try to hide behind. It comes from people who have no strong argument to stand on and only detracts from the actual issues. Games are meant to be enjoyed and played. The very intent of video games (which are a form of artwork) is meant as a form of entertainment. As a way to escape and have fun. When you implement insidious and predatory business tactics with the sole intent to get as much money out of your customers with the least amount of effort or work possible put in, that's no longer fun. It removes that element and makes the game meaningless and a complete drag to enjoy. When the games industry can't self-regulate and becomes a factory of greed and selfishness, then the only option is to have a government power step in and have them back off. Because here's the thing, if there is no law governing a company to stay in check and not take advantage of people, they will do just that. Human Psychology 101. Humans are susceptible to greed and selfishness. That's a known fact and the game industry has been plague by such issues for a long time now. All in all, I think you are exaggerating all this and trying to detract from the issue at hand. This lawful involvement is good and I do hope that it puts companies in a place to not take advantage of their customer. Something that corporations actively do and it's a massive problem.
  4. Phasferous

    Some good news. Finally

    That is of course a risk, but as a person who isn't one of their "whale" players. It's a risk I'd be willing to take. The game industry stopped taking risks some years ago and have since overall rested on their laurels.
  5. Phasferous

    Some good news. Finally

    If that's how you are reading any of that, then there's nothing anyone can say to explain is better. I doubt you even read any of what was said or watched the video in full if you replied this fast.
  6. Phasferous

    Some good news. Finally

    Yes, that are finally coming to the for front of both governments and the gaming industry. We can only hope that such legislation passes and companies like WGing stop being so predatory and start making games enjoyable and wholesome again. With "Fun" as the focus instead of only being about how much money you can get out of your playerbase. Lol. That's a good one. xD
  7. Phasferous

    Some good news. Finally

    So anyone who's aware of EA's Battlefront 2 knows how much of a disaster the game was due to Lootboxes. The game led to a few European countries outright banning them (such as Belgium), and now finally such legislation is coming to the US. Since the EU and the US are massive making money pots for WGing (and Gaijin), I can't wait for this legislation to be passed in hopes that it will put pressure on them to make a more solid, strong and long lasting game that puts the fun back into games like this. Here's to hoping this bill gets passed and we get a better game and experience as a result. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/08/video-game-loot-boxes-would-be-outlawed-many-games-under-forthcoming-federal-bill/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a1f3ec5fc0b5
  8. Yuro does more comedy content. Meaning what he shows should be taken with a grain of salt. You watch his stuff to laugh, not to get constructive criticism or feedback you can voice to the devs. Also the fact that WGing put minimal effort into the mode shows that they themselves lacked the statistics, skills and time to properly flesh out the mode at the time it was put into the game. They may have a battle system to implement it now, however WGing is known for creating something that is broken and buggy and rather then actually fix it and make the feature better. They just remove it. Meaning that features that could actually make the game better and mix things up are constantly added and removed because WGing a solider who changes their uniform like a person who changes their underwear daily. They can't pick a goal and just stick with it.
  9. Sounds like there's a disconnect between the facts and what people think the game had (opinion).
  10. So acting in denial instead of looking at critical feedback is the route being taken here? Why am I not surprised....
  11. That's because (from what I can tell) WGing doesn't put a lot of emphasis or effort into balancing their game. Bet if they had the issue raised would have been resolved. If it's too much effort just remove it. The WGing way. :/
  12. I would have loved this mode. The only reason I site in the back now (when in a BB) is because more then half the time I don't have any support pushing up. Most player just camp at the back, go do their own thing or just sit around and try to camp to get spotting points. Bastion mode sounded like a much needed addition that we still need now. Something to mix things up and make the game more enjoyable and less of a brain dead experience.
  13. So while learning some history on old features of WoWs, I came across one called Bastion Mode. The mode looked like it was fun and changed up the game in a positive way. Kept looking and found some where having issues with how strong the forts were. WGing pulled it to balance it (Update 0.5.15), then they said they had re-added it (0.5.16). Except after that there's no mention of it in any of the late on major update notes. It just stops being talked about. Not even a mention of it being removed. So what happened to it? Did WGing just try to quietly remove it? Sounded like had they actually balanced it, the game may have had better enjoyment. Also something that I was made painfully aware of while looking into old features, is that....World of Warships isn't even out of beta. We are (including myself) all paying for Premium goods for a game that's still a Early Access game. Game hasn't even hit V1.0, which is what signifies (when creating computer programs) when a piece of software leaves testing and it fully released.
  14. Phasferous

    Buyer Beware... Prinz Eitel Fredrich

    brings forth a valid form of concern and makes valid points. Gets blocked This is the level of maturity on this forum. People don't like hearing that the thing they like is bad or has flaws. Ignorance is Bliss as they say.
  15. Phasferous

    Buyer Beware... Prinz Eitel Fredrich

    Two things. This package is worth a Special Edition of a AAA game. Second that's not what their store says. It's claiming the bundle is 30% off. From what we know about the Fallout 76 Premium Content shop (and we can be found within FTC legislation), it is illegal to release a product and then have it already discounted upon release. That is misleading and against FTC laws. I know that your claim that it's discounted based on if you bought everything individually is wrong because looking over the products page shows no indication of that. Meaning that they did in-fact release it with a discounted price tag, when the bundle was never that price to begin with. If your claim was in-fact true, then why did they not just show the $130 without the implication that it was once a higher price?