• Content count

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2859

Everything posted by DDGPhalanx

  1. 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.
  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. 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. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Shining with Nobilium after getting to 400k damage though...
  10. 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%.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. I imagine it's a lot simpler to make existing operations harder than it is to create new ones.
  15. Basically went straight down the Endurance columns, except I opted for AFT over FP, with Jackal. I figured with HA, B of S, and DC IV, FP wasn't going to matter much, and it hasn't. Similar with Igor, except I didn't select any 4-point skills, opting instead for: PM, HA, EM, AR, B of S, SE, Superintendent, and DE. Got 8 kills in my first go with this setup even though I didn't fire a single killshot- all 8 kills were from fires. Basically just set every BB on fire twice and then changed targets.
  16. Most difficult op so far. Looking forward to getting it figured out later this evening. Just from playing it once with each class, it seems like jackals should focus captain skills on secondaries and need to prioritize the catapults while igor and blade focus on the battleships. No idea how to sink the final wave of battleships, and rasputin, before they get close enough to stop Transylvania. Fun and engaging..
  17. 1) What kind of setup would make "Torpedo Acceleration" appropriate? I've focused mostly on US DD's, and the payoff of range isn't worth the speed boost to me, but is it valuable on IJN DD's (or other nations/classes), and if so, what other skills should I couple it with? 2) Does Adrenaline Rush apply to CV plane servicing time? Thanks!
  18. Are there people who are probably too good at the game relative to the tier mean to be playing at tier 4? Sure. Do they negatively impact the experience of others who aren't as good? Probably. Are there also people who are probably too good at the game relative to the tier mean to be playing at tier 10? Also, sure. Do they negatively impact the experience of others who aren't as good? Also, probably. You're effectively proposing that as soon as somebody has earned a quasi-mastery of a ship or of a tier that they should be required to no longer play it, and instead play a ship or tier they're not good at lol. Odd logic. No one is SO good at this game as to make it impossible for new players to do anything. There are other games where it certainly isn't even worth playing because everyone else is SO good that you're basically useless and will forever stay useless. This isn't one of those games. For example, if I enter a game and one of the red guys happens to be Flamu, I can still have a productive game for my team- I'm just going to figure out where he is and not be within a shell's throw of him until I have to be.
  19. Yeah, this was the amusing part lol. I lost the roll. Every other time I've lost a TYL roll, I've gotten 3 signal flags or 500 free XP or some other small reward, but a port slot on a losing TYL container was pretty awesome given the fact that I've been having to sell ships lately to move up tiers.
  20. Easily the best losing TYL container I've ever gotten. Note: I now have one vacant port slot to my credit.
  21. "In May 1916, the Battle of Jutland laid the truth bare for all to see. Single salvos of shells proved enough to sink three British battlecruisers, the Indefatigable, the Invincible, ..." With names like "Indefatigable" and "Invincible," is it really any surprise they were sunk so swiftly? You can add them to a list including Formidable, Irresistible, Triumph, Audacious, Courageous, Glorious, Good Hope, Arrogant, and Vindictive (among near-countless others) in the "British ship names that probably shouldn't have happened" category.
  22. Your stats: Mogami: 61% WR, 61k damage, 1.5 KD, 40% survival New Orleans: 47% WR, 50k damage, 0.8 KD, 25% survival Baltimore: 45% WR, 59K damage, 1.1 KD, 28% survival Maybe your best bet is focusing on the IJN cruiser line considering how much better you got at them at tier 8. You were terrific in USN cruisers until tier 8 and now you're just "meh", so either you've changed how you play them or they just don't work for you. Another simple answer, if you're just worried about getting credits, would be to drop down a couple tiers and seal club for the silver. A third simple answer would be to play operations (again, if credit farming is your goal). If you're good at them, you can profit 100k credits per operation in tier 5/6 ships. I know some PvP-focused players don't care for shooting bots, but the ops are remarkably lucrative on an XP/Credit:Stress scale.
  23. The only thing I consider to be legitimate "kill-stealing" is when you're playing co-op and your CV teammate spots the red CV with his two torp bombers, but instead of dropping right away, he puts his bombers in a holding pattern until you get the red CV to about half-health, and then drops to make sure he gets the killshot. Alternatively, if your CV teammate unspots the enemy CV while his bombers are reloading so you can't get the kill, I would consider that to be somewhere along the lines of kill-stealing. Outside of that, and outside of co-op, "kill-stealing" doesn't exist. I always assume that whenever someone complains about it in the chat, they're under the age of 18 and I just let them be.
  24. Carriers can be awful at down times in coop. I've played quite a few battles as a CV where I was the only human. More often then not, you end up in a 1v5 trying to kite and manual drop on DD's. The mechanics can be amusing to watch, though. A red bot and green bot will drive right up next to each other and just sit there firing. They'll be too close for torps to even arm, but they'll launch them anyways. And despite their closeness, their gunnery accuracy will still be like 20%. All the while, you can't drop on anything because the green bots are .1km away from your targets. So you watch the red CV basically say "KILL EM ALL" and drop torps that'll kill two green DD's and a red DD because net gainz. I guess it's more amusing than awful, but you're usually going to lose. Red bots > green bots.
  25. Lol you've brought my rack up before. I have 5 NAM's. Two were end-of-tour, basically anyone who is at least mediocre at their job gets an EOT in the Navy. Three were spotted. I served as LPO, an E-6 position, as a junior E-5 during INSURV on my first ship. I served as LCPO, an E-7 position, as a junior E-6 on my second ship. If you weren't in the Navy, it'd be hard to explain the significance of those two, but I didn't get them for having a pulse. The 5th NAM was for troubleshooting a major gun casualty on CIWS for 78 consecutive hours. We had an SM-2 live fire exercise during the next underway and needed CIWS on-line to serve as our only ASM defense while Aegis was INOP for the FIREX. Had I not corrected the casualty (it's always the breech bolts), the 3-star would've deferred our SM-2 FIREX to another ship. So my CO decided to give me a NAM. Every other ribbon I have is basically a "happened to be there" ribbon, but the Navy is very different from the Army and MC. My entire rack is pretty typical aside from the NAM's. I got a MUC and a Humanitarian Service for performing S&R off the east coast of Japan after the 2011 Tohoku earthquake/tsunami caused a nuclear reactor meltdown and displaced hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens. My JMUA was standard for a Med deployment for any ship that doesn't collide with anything or cause international incidents in port. The Battle "E"s are just a right place, right time ribbon in the Navy. As for sea service, I did one typical deployment for my fourth, but my first three were for being forward-deployed. I was stationed in Japan for 3 years, and received one SS and OS ribbon each year. Nothing special really, though the 50% OP tempo was a ball-buster.