Jump to content

Daniel_Allan_Clark

Members
  • Content Сount

    2,376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1276
  • Clan

    [TARK]

Community Reputation

994 Excellent

About Daniel_Allan_Clark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Indeed it is. I've made the point before that the above is the path WG should take. It's far more profitable than trying to be historical. I wish WG would focus on 1890-1925. That era fits way better with both the playerbase AND WGs marketing of the game. More predreadnoughts...no heavy aircraft presence. It would be a beneficial change for both the players AND the marketing than trying to change all the ships meta to make CVs a viable class (i.e. force BBs to be tanks, cruisers to be short range DPM, carriers to be long range DPM, destroyers to be screens and support ships, and submarines to be rogue assassins). BUT, if WG continues to market this game as a WW2 era...then it is absurd in the extreme to remove planes (because ships designed and built in the 1940s were designed for a heavy air context!). The changes required to properly balance such a game are HUGE...and most likely beyond the WG staff competency.
  2. So, you dont want a ww2 game. Just admit it and everything becomes easy.
  3. Yes, the playerbase will succeed in killing their own game. Ah well...
  4. Daniel_Allan_Clark

    CV quit due to too many TX's

    If you dont want CVs to quit... ...how about you stop abusing players who play them? Until then, I have no issues with players who dump the game...because of what WG does to the class.
  5. Daniel_Allan_Clark

    Seattle: Skip or play?

    Never skip a ship. That's just skipping the game.
  6. Daniel_Allan_Clark

    It's over!

    I'll believe you when you decide not to work a grind.
  7. Im a BB main. I want CVs in game, as they make it better. Whoops. Better find a new argument.
  8. If this was a gun v gun game, why is it marketed as a WW2 game?
  9. They plan on buffing AA further... ...which is so incompetent that at any well run company, the development staff would be out on the street within days... ...but this is WG. So carriers will remain the most awful class to play, like they have been for years.
  10. Daniel_Allan_Clark

    Stinking Marauders

    A free2play game messing around with earnable rewards? Say it ain't so... Of course it's not fair. Nothing in this game is fair.
  11. Daniel_Allan_Clark

    It's over!

    If it was too long, you wouldnt have completed it. Grind events arent designed to be fun. They are designed to extract sufficient value from you for the ship. WG is not a charity.
  12. Daniel_Allan_Clark

    In Praise of Pre-dreadnoughts

    Sounds great! Way better than the current 'hide behind a rock with my ship' meta.
  13. Daniel_Allan_Clark

    CV and the balancing myth

    If you agree to limit the game to ships built between 1890 and 1925, I agree with your contention that this is a surface warship game only. No ships beyond tier 6 or 7. Is that the game you want? Because going past that puts you in the age of aircraft...and ignoring them is just silly. Alternatively, you could rebalance the classes as follows: BB: Tank DD: Support / screen / healer CL: Short range DPM CA: Mid range DPM CV: Long range DPM SS: rogue But most players dont want to play their precious BBs and DDs as tanks and support ships.
  14. Daniel_Allan_Clark

    Please Allow CVs to Control Hull While Flying

    Now with less control... I'm pretty certain it wont work, but WG never listens to my feedback...
  15. Daniel_Allan_Clark

    Pattern?

    Tell that to marketing... ...from a process engineer.
×