Jump to content

skhend25

Members
  • Content Сount

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6757
  • Clan

    [BR_S]

Community Reputation

123 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. I was kinda wondering what priorities are followed in the modelling design process to bring new ships in. example: hypothetical new BB 1. create a ship to balance meta, offset another ship or direction of gameplay. 2. mimicking historical capability and realistic upgrades. 3 response to player feedback/requests for a certain combo of ship abilities. 4 uniqueness of proposed ship 5 other. other guardrails I'm missing? I am pretty sure 2 and 4 would be at the bottom, I would guess that 1 would be pretty high up there. Inquiring minds and all that...
  2. skhend25

    Population Severely Declining?

    I know I'm playing less, and when I do play I can't play more than a few games without reaching my fed up meter limit. A lot has to do with the way CVs work now (I think Jingles is spot on), but there are a multitude of reasons for me. (same old maps, MM needs modernising, etc...) So, I don't doubt for a second that the number of players is dropping. But not my game, they own it and do what they want with it my voice won't matter...
  3. design goal theory.... present for other ships to use as a target practice ship?
  4. skhend25

    Can anyone confirm a theory...

    update for today 9 games 2 in T7 7 in T6: 1 top tier, 2 mid tier, 6 bottom tier
  5. skhend25

    Can anyone confirm a theory...

    tracking my last 100... 60 times bottom of a 3 tier spread 5 bottom in a 2 tier 17 times mid tier 12 times top tier in a 2 tier 7 times top tier 3 tier spread. I didn't track anything prior so this could be a simple anomaly based on gaming times/players/tiers and if I did it for a thousand it would fall in line... but it is aggravating when it occurs.
  6. skhend25

    Some observations on DDs and CVs

    I get that it feels like a double standard, and I agree with you. Both are quite deadly and both infuriate other classes. Personally, outside of a couple, I have nothing at all against CV players, they are using what the game gives them for good or evil and like the rest of us are trying to maximize to win and have fun. The reason why this I think this hate for CVs will never go away is the simple fact that WG is jamming a popular class of ship into a game (for $$ and users) that I think can never really fully fit into a surface combat structured game without creating some balance problems. I'm sure this will get trolled to death and all the other nasty things that happen on the forum but this is my logic: 1) CVs (and subs) are strategic warfare assets, while the rest of the classes are more tactical in nature... that already creates balance problems from the nature and role of the different ships. 2) A CVs mission was to gain air superiority over an area by taking out air bases and most importantly enemy CVs. After that, they pounded whatever was left that hadn't already escaped. Once air power came into its own capital ships did not even attempt major operations where enemy carriers were operating, unless at night or when friendly aircraft were around to take on the enemy aircraft. Why? because aircraft had become the dominate weapon of naval warfare. It happens here all the time a really good CV player can turn a game single handed as easily as any other ship in the game. In our games there is not nearly enough incentive or capability for a CV to even attempt to fulfill that first mission. It really is much more beneficial for full strength CVs to go after each others surface ships, which clearly aggravates a lot of players, but it is the best way for them to help their team win. 3) BB,CA,DD AA armaments were not designed/capable of stopping an air attack on itself if by itself, they were given enough to make the number of strikes limited due to losses when aircraft attacked it or were attacking a friendly carrier the ship was escorting, it was accepted if a capital ship was attacked it would be hit and possibly sunk, even AA cruisers were not really expected to completely stop an air raid. It took the entire groups AA to stop an attack, this game is not really setup for ships to easily make and play in task forces as with mission and objectives you have a lot of people operating with different agendas, so you don't see much of that after the first 5 minutes. The CV tactic drop 2 early and attack with the rest, the concept of limiting the number of strikes through aircraft losses is pretty much negated, and its a smart move by CV players to use it, so you can't stop attacks that keep coming at you wave after wave. I would love it if there were limits on plane regen and all ships torp reloading not just DDs, but then I am suggesting they make the game more historical and many people like the "arcade" features which that group probably has more members that the more historically accurate proponents so it won't change. 4) CVs would never get into surface gunnery range, not on purpose anyway, so finding a good hiding place at the edge is the only safe tactic, but here again a CA for example getting hit by something over and over that you can't do anything about tends to get the anger level going. Add to that the damage model is really nuts IMO and is another reason it makes no sense for CVs to go after each other. This is because an actual CV (except for some Brits) would only be able to take a couple of hits to the flight deck or propulsion to be stopped from launching any aircraft til it was repaired, unlike our game CVs had to be moving to launch squadrons of planes before catapults came along. Now If this damage model were changed somehow to hurt either launch/land or regen ability or even not limiting fires to only 5 seconds, it would make surface ship players very happy and worth it for a CV to go after a CV to cause it to be limited for a while to help teamates, but then CV players would quit because that would make CV play A LOT less fun for them so that won't happen either Anyway my long winded way to say... yes its a double standard and yes I still like CVs less than DDs because they will never get the balance right for them, its not possible given the game structure and CV role but at least they are trying so that's a good thing... happy gaming and good hunting to you.
  7. Most of my ships are in T6-7 range. A discussion I had one time with a support staffer said I should be bottom tier in games approx. 40%... Since I moved up into these tier I am actually running about 60-65%. My theory as to the difference is that there is so many playing higher tier that I am constantly getting "drafted" as the cannon fodder because there aren't enough at my tier and the 40% is either not in the algorithm or is lower priority than number of ships/tier in the match. Does anybody know how this code actually works? if the theory is true maybe I can change up my ship tiers and get a better balance.
  8. skhend25

    The Essex and Bogue class CV, CVE.

    Do we need more CV options in the game right now? Seriously... guess they could change the name to World of Carriers, or maybe Fast Carriers (if they can get the rights).
  9. skhend25

    Roosevelt CV interesting

    I would concur.... especially as we are regularly getting multi CV games in T5/6 now, not just T4 anymore, its so much fun now that all the mid tier is infected.
  10. skhend25

    WG please fix the Asymmetric Battle mode

    odd, I've played 5-6 times now... no bots and love the idea of AB. It might have a couple rough edges, but finally something novel and new rather than hey we've scope creeped or nerfed your ship, or enjoy even more CVs in your games. I personally am really happy for the addition. So for once in the forums I am not [edited] but applauding... must be mellowing as I get older.
  11. skhend25

    CV player

    My 2 cents such as it is... I personally don't play CVs, I am sure they have their rewards and challenges like all ships. My own thoughts stem from the fact that where CVs operated, there were no daylight surface engagements all surface ships hid or escorted CVs. So to me it was always tough to bring them in and make everyone happy as they really are more of a strategic asset than an operational.... but people want them and WG has tried several times to get a balance for them. Gamewise a single CV is really not bad at all in a game, yes when your the focus of waves of planes it angers because you can't hurt your attacker, but it doesn't break the overall flow and feel of a game. Being able to blast apart your tormenter at the end is an extra savory reward as well. However 2 in a game to me does push the salt level of a game to almost unpalatable... and thereby lowers the fun level of playing the game. Speaking hypothetically now... I wonder if they could balance the queue for CV players by something like a Carrier War mode which would add additional CV maps and missions (convoy attack, airbase strike, etc) to go along with Random to not make CV players have to wait and be able to put a limit on CV #'s in Random to cut down on the overall hate for the class... Won't happen, but forums are the birthplace of ideas, so that is mine.
  12. skhend25

    Nerf The Russian Guns Already

    It would be fun to discuss the realistic reason those guns wouldn't see actual deployment. (thx for the links warheart)... and why this shouldn't be here and why this is wrong and why this class shouldn't even belong in this type of game.... and on and on. BUT, this is a game which is why you have guns and ships that were left in blueprints and during sea trials for good reason in real life but they end up here... also why you see ships with torpedo reloads, CVs that can create more planes than they carried. and weird halloween ships, 40K ships and even paddle boats. Its a game meant for pleasure not historical accuracy. Nerdly, for me those 2 go hand in hand, but not for most people. This is how I learned to love the bomb Dr Strangelove...
  13. wakeful is my current DD, its seems to be ok at times and not. Could be doesn't fit my game. Emerald/Hawkins.... is where I am now, the second I get spotted 5 ships are pounding them with AP. Only success I've had is hiding behind an island which is the type of playstyle I absolutely despise. Stats are average to above with every other nation, but if I am in a Brit other than BB, my team loses everytime…. so maybe this just isn't my nation. Brit BB I've loved so far.
  14. They are so outclassed it seems by every other nation it seems a pity that they are even in the game.... they should have a default paint scheme of one big bullseye. with a bell to ring when they get hit by anything. your mileage may differ.... if so let me know how the hell you manage to pull off a decent game in them. * should note this applies to anything below Fiji
×