Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About ScottMeisterheim

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. ScottMeisterheim

    Asymmetrical Random Battles?

    So, in Randoms, I occasionally see battles where one side has, say, 4 cruisers and 2 DDs while the other has 5 & 1. However, this seems pretty rare. The vast majority of the time, the two forces are mirrors of each other in terms of ship types (and always in tier and number.) While certainly this is a "fair" way to do things, and assures some semblance of balance in matchmaking, to me it can get a little stale. I wouldn't mind seeing a matchmaking system that's a little more flexible. For example, it could be based on points, where higher-tier ships could have a greater point value, and the system would attempt to equalize "points" (within some margin of tolerance) across the two forces, rather than simply mirroring the forces. Maybe points could also be adjusted for the countering ability of ship types (e.g. a DD-heavy side would get more points if matched up against a cruiser-heavy side.) This would open up some new scenarios and associated tactical decisions: a mostly-cruiser force fighting against a mixed BB/DD force; a large armada of lower-tier ships against a small band of higher-tier; air versus surface; etc. Also, even though the MM algorithm would be a little more complex, it could possibly shorten queue times by allowing the MM to more readily make use of the queued players regardless of tier, ship type, etc. Finally, it would be more "realistic" in the sense that historical engagements rarely occurred between mirrored forces (I know, this is an action game, not a sim, but I enjoy the elements of historical realism, where they exist.) A downside is that this would be that it would at times probably result in some manifestly "unfair" scenarios, perhaps even more so than the current mirrored Random MM. Perhaps it would be better as a separate game mode?
  2. ScottMeisterheim

    Err, wot? Royal Navy 'level bombing' speciality!

    Yes, if it’s really “carpet bombing” then in-game it could mainfest as a very high chance of scoring a hit, but low damage per hit, due to dropping a large number of smaller bombs. Quite ahistorical for naval bombing, though. Can anyone cite any historical precedent (RN or otherwise)?
  3. I had a 25k damage Kraken in a Furutaka this past Thanksgiving Day. (Bagged a Turkey in the process.)
  4. ScottMeisterheim

    Sorry for being trash

    I feel like almost every other match I see someone complaining about a teammate being “chicken” (or equivalent) and often the complainer has just stupidly suicided and can’t believe others didn’t lemming alongside him. I mean, I fully admit that there are times when in hindsight I was insufficiently aggressive, but it’s just a mistake. It has nothing to do with being “scared” of watching my pixel ship sinking. I’m not trying to be a snowflake and it doesn’t bug me THAT much, and I understand people getting upset over someone else’s poor play costing their team a match, but it seems like that particular accusation gets thrown around with absurd frequency.
  5. Then there's no reason to get upset over having your icon turn pink in a frivolous, meaningless game.
  6. So, I understand that Directive IV is trivial for people with a diverse bunch of high-tier premiums, but for someone like me it would take hours per day of grinding, and that’s not gonna happen. I’m not complaining. People who have put in the time/money to build up great fleets should be rewarded. But it does seem a little incongruous next to Directives I-III, which are all eminently do-able in probably 3-4 days each, let alone a week. Oh well. I’ll take the 1,500 steel. Should be enough to push me over the top for the Musashi.
  7. ScottMeisterheim

    Arsenal Ship Coupon

    Are the coupons always -25%?
  8. Cool thanks. I wasn't around for those campaigns, but they look pretty hard/grindy. Since we can potentially earn the PEF prior to the campaign, should we expect there to be any tasks which require the PEF to complete? (The RN missions that required specific ships generally seemed to be much more manageable.)
  9. Do we expect the missions for In The Name of His Highness to be similar to the RN event? (i.e. Gain 1000000 credits with T5+ ships; Hit the citadel of an enemy ship 8 times; Earn 5 capture/assist in capture ribbons; etc.) And for the Mighty Prinz Campaign, should we expect similar tasks/rewards to the Science of Victory Campaign?
  10. ScottMeisterheim

    Containers - Are they Gambling? My thoughts...

    It's a little different from gambling IMO, because gambling implies the possibility that you can come out ahead. These crates don't have any chance to return actual money, so they're simply an expenditure. Part of the lure of gambling is that there's a chance to recoup your "investment" or even make a profit. With the crates, the money is spent. There's no chance of making it back - only a chance of having better or worse in-game items. (For the record, I don't believe that gambling should be banned either.)
  11. ScottMeisterheim

    What Achievements have you NOT Earned Yet?

    Amazingly I got one 4 days after registering, in a Kawachi. Guess I shouldn't expect many more.
  12. +1 I'm a huge fan of this idea. To give it even more depth, it could include aspects like capturable fuel supply points, land-based aircraft, management of ship production/repair, etc.
  13. ScottMeisterheim

    Reward desired behavior! Don't punish "AFK-er" or Disconnect

    When a player is AFK in Randoms, it detracts from the experience of the active players in a match. I don't think it's unreasonable to restrict players who are repeatedly AFK, for whatever reason, from participating in competitive game modes. It's not so much a matter of assigning moral blame, but rather in order to preserve the integrity of the game modes for everyone else.
  14. ScottMeisterheim

    Reward desired behavior! Don't punish "AFK-er" or Disconnect

    Haven't read the whole thread, but I would like to see a bot automatically take over for a player who's left a match. Then at least the team wouldn't have a complete zero in that spot. Of course the AFK player wouldn't be credited with the bots' XP or stats (maybe except for W/L) so players don't use it to farm XP. Might not help for people who leave the battle open and simply physically leave their keyboard (although perhaps there could be an inactivity timer where a bot automatically took over if the player was inactive for X minutes?)
  15. Thanks man... appreciate the reply. I definitely agree about T9. I'm under no illusions that I'm close to being ready to hop into T9 randoms and be effective. I'm only tempted to get it because it's leaving. But you're right: if I just keep grinding normally, I should be able to get the Yamato in a few months anyway, so maybe it's redundant. I just see the other coal ships like the Salem and the Jean Bart and, while they might be good, effective ships, they don't really resonate in the same way with my WW2 naval buff side. Also, since I mostly play IJN BBs, it would be a great captain trainer. Anyway, I think you're right that it's probably not worth the stress of the grind. I realize I've only been playing for 2 months, so I shouldn't feel entitled to anything. Just kind of sad that one of my fav historical ships is going away and I may never be able to collect it. But maybe something else fun will show up in the arsenal and I'll be glad I still have coal to buy it.