Jump to content

DJC_499

Members
  • Content Сount

    378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5115
  • Clan

    [FOG]

Community Reputation

139 Valued poster

1 Follower

About DJC_499

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Brighton and Frankfort, Michigan
  • Interests
    Environmental Geochemist with a long time interest in World War II warships, especially battleship-related battles and operations

Recent Profile Visitors

619 profile views
  1. DJC_499

    cv opt out

    I agree with your statement as to my imagination, sadly though you are obviously unable to read that I have 5,115 battles completed with the last ones this morning.....
  2. DJC_499

    cv opt out

    With all of the repetition in this thread I guess I can appropriately restate what I have been posting since when I first heard of this rework. WG's goals are clear, they want more total players and more games played. I believe their goal is to make CVs instantly competitive even by a first time player. I read that some player noted that they never had played CVs before and yet dominated the battle in a CV the first time out. I could hear the quiet cheering in WG's headquarters. WG wants to attract new (and likely younger players) who want an easy and fast path to learning a ship without all of this tedious grinding. WG wants these players to buy a new premium CV and be instantly competitive and frankly utterly dominant. They must have data that supports the notion that they will gain more new players than they will lose. This is sort of a game of chicken in that they are betting that the long-time players who will hate this forthcoming change will not really leave in spite of threats. Further, with flying wrecking machines around games will end quicker allowing more total games per unit time. People are hoping for improved AA and it will not be coming anytime soon. WG wants CVs to be overwhelming overpowered to attract new players and only after a few or probably several months will some gradual AA improvement be provided; well after CVs are thoroughly embedded into the game in far greater numbers than they are now.
  3. DJC_499

    Fun question! Most fun ship for coop?

    Massachusetts, Grosser Kurfurst both with full secondary build and Musashi….
  4. As I have noted I am surprised and frankly amazed as to how this matter has been handled. The overall change could have been carefully considered to proactively predict responses and then comprehensively rolled out in one formal announcement. The rationale for the proposed change should have been clearly and comprehensively stated as well as sensitively mentioning concern among some as to perceived Russian bias and how this comprehensive change helps to try to dispel that notion. A discussion could have been offered that arguably that a refund is not required or legally mandated, but to again be sensitive to those energized by this change that a refund will indeed be offered although again legally required. I think that with more optimal management this matter could have been implemented without all of the heat and no doubt lingering hard feelings that probably were generated. Perhaps this might be a learning lesson......
  5. I think that water penetrations lead to the reporting of a torpedo hit from shells from main battery guns. I have previously reported, especially for the Musashi that sinkings are shown as coming from torpedo hits when obviously this cannot be the case.
  6. I continue to be amazed and sadden at how tone deaf WG can be from time to time. Management theory teaches you to proactively consider all perspectives and the associated concerns as part of your "Management of Change" approach. It is vital in your communications to be "clear, consistent, comprehensive and provide certainty". Think of how much better this matter could have been handled if WG had come out with an announcement that comprehensively stated that this mechanic was being examined and the rationale (and the full and truthful rationale) as to the reexamination. They then could come out with a follow-on statement that discusses the full matter and announce that yes there will be this change and we recognize anticipated concerns. Consequently, refunds for Stalingrad and Kronshtadt wil be offered and even proactively touch on the perception as to how Russian bias is clearly not applicable. Trust takes months, years, a career, or even a lifetime to develop and nurture yet can be lost, literally, in a moment. Sadly there recently has been far too many "moments".
  7. DJC_499

    Preparing for the sky apocalypse

    This does seem to the case at this moment as confirmed on a Staff posting.
  8. Bingo, we have a winner.....and consequently people will want to play them and play them a lot......
  9. By the rationale that is presented above one could argue that DDs (and other torpedo-equipped ships) have a "limited" supply of torpedoes. If a DD has a two minute reload and launches a spread at the 18:30 time mark of a battle then no more torp reloads will happen and by the above discussion this DD now has "limited" torps, which obviously is not the definition we have been using since the game began.
  10. DJC_499

    Bot CVs in 0.8.0 Coop Battles

    I also read that no CVs would be in Tier I through III battles. While I was obviously not surprised by the I and II limits the Tier IIO comment was eye-catching. One the biggest issues I have with CVs with Tier III ships is their utter absence of any AA. I was once repeated attacked by a bot CV 13 times when in a Konig Albert and could only shoot down a plane or two (at most) during each attack. That will make Tier III life a little easier.
  11. What I find amazing is that many readers do not understand that WG had already developed responses to anticipated forum posts. They certainly would have "gamed" out the anticipated outcomes of this PTS and worked to develop prepared and fully reviewed language in anticipation of the forthcoming forum posts. I, sincerely, read this response as one that was pre-packaged and especially included the statement that I knew would be forthcoming that they were pleased with the results and that this effort would be continuing. To be clear, there is no malice associated with my comments and am only noting that WG has an agenda and that they are continue with the next page of their playbook that included release of this response that frankly we should/did anticipate.
  12. I read this as consistent with the WG approach that the intent is to allow CVs to run wild as they did on the PTS during 0.8.0 in order to inspire new and current players to play more CV battles. The response then will be to say that important data have been collected and will be evaluated but that they are very pleased with the results to date and recoginize that some "adjustments" will be made but that they cannot rush into these changes prematurely. Consequently, perhaps in 0.8.2 or so we will see the CVs incrementally throttled back, but only after there has been an established increase in CV play.
  13. DJC_499

    Bot CVs in 0.8.0 Coop Battles

    FYI - I just read on the 0.8.0 Development posting that a CV AI rework is "in progress" but it is unclear if it will be ready for 0.8.0 or not. I guess this is the most definitive information we have at the moment.
  14. I posed this question a few days ago but wanted to more fully understand if bot CVs will be appearing in 0.8.0 Coop Battles. I saw on the test server that when a friendly CV showed up in a Coop battle there was no opposing bot CV. Will that be the case for 0.8.0 until WG has the AI worked out for these CVs? (Thanks)
  15. I think that you should note that a number of us predicted exactly this situation immediately upon the announcement of the CV rework. As I have repeated stated CVs would be utterly and totally dominant and able to repeatedly and continually bomb, torpedo and rocket attack essentially helpless non-CV ships. Honestly, I am sad to see that I and others were correct, but to those that state that this system is "broken" I will say that from the perspective of WG it is working as intended. The entire goal of WG is to make CVs easier to play and with resulting increased play. As I noted the easiest way to achieve this is to make these the flying wreaking machines that we now see. WG believes, in my humble opinion, that the vast majority of the players who choose not to play CVs will simply continue their play at their previous rates and that when YouTube is loaded with dozens of +300K damage games by CVs that new players will flock to those ships increasing both the total player base as well as CV players. The anticipated response by WG to the concerns as to the AA will be essentially that non-CVs will need to adapt to a changing meta and that ships should sail together, etc, etc. (e. g., git gud). Oh, and that the "balance issue" is being examined but change cannot be made too quickly until months of data are collected and examined and then, rest assured, WG will report back on their findings.
×