Jump to content

skhend25

Members
  • Content Сount

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3504
  • Clan

    [BR_S]

Community Reputation

108 Valued poster

About skhend25

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. today another perfect example why I play less now and will never spend a dime for this thing.... team quality disparity today as bad as I've ever seen it.
  2. 1) bottom tier of a 3 tier spread and your first game in the ship 2) multiple CV game 3) the only DD in a mostly cruiser game 4) Any game in a Russian Low/Mid tier DD 5) Add your situation here...
  3. Lots of interesting commentary... both for and against... my big reservation is this: submarines of the WWII era were strategic economic warfare assets, primarily tasked with killing enemy supply shipping and spy/rescue missions with the occasional capital ship when gifted one. so putting that into a tactical surface combat game I would think would be tough to balance. Carriers are also a strategic combat asset and... well there has never been much alignment across the user base on their balance. IF they can somehow balance those 2 strategic classes with the 3 surface combat classes (and it would be a miracle for anyone to get it right so not indictment of WG)… then its gonna be amazing. For me that's a lot of if's, so that's why I am a mild no thanks.
  4. I have to admit I am in the No camp. For me the best that can be hoped for is that the 2 strategic warfare assets (subs and CVs) cancel each other out. Anyone care to predict what the dominating storylines will be with a new class in the game?
  5. skhend25

    ST, armor-piercing rockets

    I'm holding out for the nuclear ballistic missile sub... so sadly not only do we have to deal with the current variety we get to enjoy AP rocket %$#@ too...
  6. I am just the sort of crazy BusIntel type to add them up myself... 15 minutes of my life I will never get back... but it was illuminating. I stopped and took a couple days off hoping to reset karma...
  7. you play 3 Tier 5 centered games and the totals of games played by the two teams look like this against you... Game 1: 115K vs 60K, Game 2: 152K vs. 48K, Game 3 101K vs 63K... Any other horror stories out there that fit the Title?
  8. skhend25

    Looking for answer regarding MM

    Sounds like the fact that I basically scroll through all my ships sequentially rather than play one or 2 consistently maybe what has caused this abnormal distribution over that stretch of games... much appreciated for everyone's input
  9. I did a back of the envelope tracking of my last 40 T5-T7 games. In 31 of those I was bottom tier. My question is, is there any level of module completion/captain points/etc... that goes into the calculation of what game you fall into? Because if I can adjust to whatever the criteria is so I can at least be 50/50 bottom tier vs mid/top I would be a happier camper...
  10. skhend25

    How broken is MM

    lol, will not matter... no level of complaint will go beyond making you personally feel better. So I hope this topic coming up for the XXhundreth time let you vent some frustration and get it out. This is a game in the maturity stage, it has pretty much levelled off in terms of new users, they are fortunate that it seems they are getting about enough to replace those that leave still, and average revenue per user. In that situation you milk as much cash out of it as you can... you put time and resources only into things that are true break/fix or minor enhancements that can bring in a few incremental $$$ with little cost. Eventually some one will pump a huge investment in a competitive product that is actually as good or better, then they will have to decide to pull the plug or take the cash reserves made and put big money in to truly upgrade. Either way, making a skill component to MM in an attempt to fully balance Random Battles, there just isn't enough of an issue with enough people to warrant the investment. for the majority its fine or they can live with it... so no money will be going to make any substantive changes anytime soon. Sorry man, that's the software business... if you get 40-50K people to sign a petition, or cut WAY back on the number of games they play or worse amount they spend. Then you gotta shot. My 2 cents (or rubles or whatever)
  11. that would be great if they could do anything to encourage a little more open gameplay... seems like all the positives get swallowed up by the negatives.
  12. Seems low-tier the game is about avoiding being singled out by the multi CVs in t3/4 to enjoy your gaming experience, while most of the games I have played so far in T5/7 everyone pretty much camps out behind islands and the winner is either 1) the first ones to the islands or 2) the team with the longest average main batteries range wins. This seems a pretty boring way to kill a half hour, so I am hoping its not the rule but the exception. So is this normal or do I seem to consistently get matchups where the pros have deemed this the only way to win? Or are there actually naval tactics being employed in some games?
  13. skhend25

    Concerns for future of WoWs NA

    I think we all know you guys are trying to do what you think is best for the game, not just the user community now but in the future as well. I know I have given some feedback after thinking honestly about it, and at times I have given it out of anger or frustration after some games (see multiple rants about multiple CVs for example). The former I usually get good discussions from other players and community leaders, the latter I usually get correctly told to quit whining by the base. Personally, my only concern with CVs and subs are that they were strategic level assets in a game originally laid out to be a surface fleet gunnery action. So if they are designed and actually work as support assets and not things that dominate the game (which in real life CVs did dominate the waters, hence why their balance is so tricky and one that I do not think a game designed as it is can really get just right). But then we add another strategic warfare component of submarines, which were mostly employed as an economic warfare weapon in WWI and WWII. SO balance again in this game context I think is gonna really be tricky. I do not envy WG with either one, as it is so hard to balance that many classes within the framework of the design, but if the balance of capabilities is off and the number in the game is high (say 3 to 4 per side between the 2 classes) then nobody will want to play surface ships or not without a whole lotta salt....
  14. I think I can some this up as good discussion, a little venting and a whole lot of wasted effort as no changes will ever be made. The only other observation I have from a personal standpoint is: zero or single CV games are fun, multi CV games are not an enjoyable use of my free time. The last time I was able to not be angered by them and get salty is when I set a hard cap on myself of 3 multi CV games at one sitting, on the 3rd, time to log out. That may just be how I have to play the game for the foreseeable future. Guys great points, appreciate the limited flaming and your viewpoints...
  15. Yep, you guys are highlighting all of the reasons for why players are currently playing the way they are... But, what if 1) aircraft actually traveled at the proper comparative speed as ships... right now this is not the case. 2) Strike aircraft normally flew at high enough altitude until ready for their attack runs that little AA damage was caused as they flew over patrol ships. 3) Squadrons were normal 12 aircraft not 6, if you were to make the above changes you would need to adjust the damage capacity of the current squadrons or add planes. 4) you wouldn't attack 2 planes at a time but full squadrons get in, drop ordnance and run. It would definitely require some work, but I believe the end product would meet with a much more positive player satisfaction experience than current version. But its a good positive discussion so far, thanks to all.
×