Jump to content
  • Content count

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2898

Community Reputation

50 Good

About DDGPhalanx

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Profile on the website DDGPhalanx

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

342 profile views
  1. Several premium ships are discounted. I got Atlanta, 4000 doubloons, and 4mil credits for $53. The 4000 doubloons is enough to buy a second premium ship from the tech tree right now, such as Sims. I haven't pulled the trigger yet because this is the first time I've spent money on the game and I'm wary of throwing away the shiny brass I just got, but that basically means I got Atlanta ($64), Sims ($25), 500 doubloons ($3) and 4mil credits for $53. Alternatively, I could put the doubloons to low-tier ships. 4000 is enough to buy Oleg, Katori, and Ishizuchi, with 600 to spare, which would mean 4 premium ships, 600 doubloons, and 4mil credits for $53. The regular price for this package, minus the 4mil credits, is $108. Not saying this as an answer to your request or to discount it, but that's a pretty solid deal IMO. Granted, I've been waiting for months to be able to buy Atlanta, so..
  2. Then is it really a game to you? Sounds like you consider it more like work than recreation. The point of a game is to be fun to play. If you don't find a particular mode within a game fun to play in itself, then incentivizing you to play that mode with rewards doesn't solve your problem; again, it just gives you an extrinsic motivation to play it. If they stopped running events and missions of every kind, would you still play the game because you intrinsically enjoy it, or would you stop playing altogether because there's no end goal? Playing a game solely to achieve end goals doesn't seem to make much sense. If it isn't inherently enjoyable to you, why not spend your time doing something that is?
  3. Replay value generally shouldn't be contingent upon the awards you receive for replaying. Either you consider the ops entertaining, which is the replay value in itself, or you don't consider them entertaining, in which case it isn't really increasing your replay value by giving you incentives for completing them- you'd just be replaying them for some extrinsic utility. I play them all the time because they're more engaging than PvE but less frustrating than PvP while providing a good median return on XP and creds. The replay value comes from me finding it an entertaining game mode.
  4. Happy Birthday Marines

    Let's get them a cake, then!
  5. Love the idea of 8v16 co-op, but there don't need to be any additional perks for it. It also doesn't need to really be anything special- keep everything else the same (maps + objectives) but spawn 2 Farragut's for every Farragut and etc. It'd effectively already be roughly double XP and credits per match on the presumption that you'd be dealing twice as much damage, which should be enough of a perk in itself to draw people to it. (As a sidebar, this would be particularly beneficial to people on standard accounts who use tech tree ships above tier VI in co-op to retrain captains or learn the ship- as it is now, you'll more often than not lose credits at tier VII in co-op, and tier VIII and up are a guaranteed loss of credits every match, but with twice the damage to be farmed, this makes those ships more cost-friendly even without added perks.) Seems like a fun way to make PvE less of a guaranteed win at any rate, but the other question that could be raised is whether enough people play PvE to be able to support 8v8 and 8v16 game modes considering many PvE captains already migrated some of their playing time to scenarios.
  6. Huzzah! 5 Stars At Last!

    It took almost the entire two weeks, and well over 100 tries, but I finally 5-starred Sunray! We executed the ole "Ram Rasputin and Gorgon in the filth" plan to perfection. Shoutout to these random homies that locked it down.
  7. The real take on potatoes

    Underappreciated understanding of the game. Mounting comebacks in this game can be decidedly difficult with two equally matched teams, no matter what level that match is. The snowball effect is real. I don't believe there is a large percentage of players who don't do their darned best to beat each other up. I do believe, however, that players of almost all experience and skill levels have default settings for different maps, and if their default is usurped by the opponent, they can struggle to recover and devise a secondary plan of attack. And it's in that where the separation occurs between great and average players- great players know what average players default to, predict correctly their movements, and make the average player look like a bad player by blowing up their first plan of attack and sinking them before they have a chance to find a way out and plan again. I know this because it happens to me often (on both sides). I have an idea from experience of what usually works and what usually doesn't. I do what usually works most times. Sometimes, I come up against superior players who guessed I'd do what I did, and they make me pay. This happens, I think, to just about everyone, and can be the catalyst to lopsided victories. I think it's a very small, "fraction of a percentage point", portion of this player base that doesn't try to win and play better every game. I think we spend too much time criticizing other people and not enough time criticizing ourselves. There is only another "fraction of a percentage point" portion of this player base that is good enough to justifiably criticize others. I presume everyone else to just be blowing off steam from a hard day at work or school.
  8. Not a rant or "This must change!" post, I'm just generally curious: Why do we have to wait or pay 75,000 credits in between battles with a ship in scenarios? Is this to semi-mitigate credit farming? To help keep the ship pool diverse? It seems like the effective result of this is just decreased playing time in the scenarios, or playing ships I don't particularly want to in them (like rolling Graf Spee or NM in the traditional ops, two ships I don't really enjoy and am not very good in). Just something I'd like clarified. TY.
  9. It's not. It's strictly a liability, especially when your CV and DD aren't on the same page. >DD fires a bagillion torps at 4 ships, anticipating their movements. He's nailed it, quadruple kill coming for sure. >CV uses Eclipse. It's super effective. >DD's torps miss first three ships by 3 kilometers. CV manual drops with torpedo acceleration on fourth ship to sink him before DD's torps get there. >DD kamikazi's into filth in frustration and rams Great Gorgon, causing Gorgon to lose 1/25th of its HP.
  10. Halloween Event

    Shining with Nobilium after getting to 400k damage though...
  11. Halloween Event

    You've had a CV in every match because there are almost always 30 CV's in the queue. I've run it a couple times now without a carrier, so there's no requirement from WG. That said, there should be, and there should also be a cap of 1 on destroyers. Even that might be excessive. Only a truly superior player can play a DD in the Sunray operation and be anything more than a wasted slot. - I've never said this about any other operation, but the Sunray operation really needed a skill requirement before implementation. The day it came out, it was a blast- I routinely got matched with generally good teams and we were getting 3-4 stars every match with no dead weight. But the past two days have been dreadful, and to make matters worse, because the ships are tier 8 and it's more or less required to purchase the upgraded consumables, I'm regularly having 400k+ damage games where I lose 50,000+ credits because everyone's dying before Gorgon even shows up. There's simply too much going on, coupled with unique ships and unique consumables, for a lot of players to handle. Over the past two days, I'm seeing CV's ramming BB's in the filth 3 minutes into the match, DD's camping at Rasputin's spawn and dying to his secondaries before they even launch torps, and BB's that don't use their heal while they have 3 allies at 1/4 health within their radius. It's far too complex a scenario to allow everyone to play, and the end result is the op becoming a near-guaranteed loss of credits. This is precisely the reason, I presume, that every previous op was designed for the simpler tier 5/6 gameplay. That said, it's easily been the most entertaining scenario when I've matched with decent or better players. Bottom line/ tldr: Too much time and effort went into making this op awesome (and it is awesome) to let it be ruined for everybody because of the bottom 10%.
  12. Sunray in the Darkness

    This op is bonkers. 10/10. Haven't tried it in the CV yet because there have constantly been 25+ CV's in the queue, but it's a boatload of fun so far in every other class.
  13. Some Thoughts on Clan Battles

    Got excited, thought I missed something, then realized that when you say "ranked," you mean "clan". Anyways, for people who wanted to participate in clan battles, they promulgated the details over a month ago. Frankly, clan battles aren't the time to learn a new ship, just like ranked isn't the time to learn how to manual drop with a Ryu. I imagine people that are entering clan battles with rental ships aren't performing very well on the whole. The better strategy would seem to be that, knowing clan battles will be tier X only, one would build a clan and get acquainted with each other, and each other's ships, by divisioning in random battles. If your clan mates don't all have tier X ships to begin with, why put yourself at a competitive disadvantage by having a team full of players trying to learn on the fly against more experienced clans that already know their ships? Even if they allowed you mercenaries, and even if they made the changes to rental ships for you, all that would do is make your clan cannon fodder for the clans that have their own tier X's and the perks that come with them. You should understand that the majority of clans participating are people who have played together for a while, have good chemistry and superior understanding of the game, and will wipe the floor with clans that're getting their first taste of tier X play. As for lowering the tier requirement for clan battles, doesn't that cheapen the mode, especially when you consider the rewards they're offering? All considered, it sounds like you want it to just be easier when this mode more than any other was designed for tournament-style competition. It's supposed to be the hardest, and most competitive, mode. So guys like me who don't do clans/teams, and guys like you who play more casually than competitively, shouldn't want to take away from those who had already peaked and needed a new challenge.
  14. WG, make them easier

    In a perfect world, they'd do both As for operations at different tiers, though, I think that could become problematic. They should want every player to be able to participate (or as many as possible,) but at the same time, you can't have overly simplistic gameplay or else it's no different than co-op. If you make ops for tier 8+ ships, a decent-sized portion of the player base wouldn't be able to participate, and if you make ops for tier 4- ships, the meta could get too simple. I think that's why they settled around 5-6. Still, it would be fun to run ops at higher tiers for sure (and the Dunkirk op was a blast, though it required unique ships to balance properly). I thoroughly enjoy the existing ops, so the more the merrier, and if they can make the existing ops harder with easy and minor tweaks, even better. Just gotta remember who they're targeting (or should target)- namely, everybody.
  15. WG, make them easier

    I imagine it's a lot simpler to make existing operations harder than it is to create new ones.
×