Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Spud_butt

Ignore this if you can

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,000
[CREDO]
Members
2,457 posts
9,230 battles

hi 

1) trollers are demonstrating how stupid morons can be. they do this with gifs, statements like 'WG said so', stat and experience shaming, and salt. they need to be banned from the forum, or given their own separate area where they can bring humiliation and shame upon themselves without infecting the rest of us. disagree with what somebody wrote? no problem! but express yourself in other ways than stupidity.

2) CVs need a major revision of gameplay. no other class in the game can control weapons once fired, with the exception of those that have a special relationship with RNG. WG manages to retain a tenuous, loose grip on reality based gameplay with all other classes excepting CVs. CV skippers were not able to micromanage attacks made by their flight groups much more than a BB captain can alter where a shell goes once fired. they had priority targets, or tasks that, for the most part, once assigned and launched, the group leaders, combat conditions and SOPs controlled. CV admirals did not fly with, nor direct, their air groups. they determined where to go, the areas to be searched, and how many search planes to send, how many fighters to launch, the load and where to send the ..... etc etc and then sat on their asses waiting for news, returning planes, and preparing for incoming attacks or the next outgoing attacks. substantially different than what we now have in the game. the manual drops, strafing and nerfs are flat out crazy. bad crazy. my own personal opinion is if CV skippers are off flying with an air group, the ship itself should be AFK. there are no crews in WoWs to take over while you're gone.

3) submarines. WG has shown us how badly they can mess up a class of ships with CVs, but this is not a good reason to be leaving out one of the major classes of ships in WW1 and WW2. seriously, how tough can it be? I mean, the worst they could do is to give the sub skippers control over torps after firing, or give them UW strafe, or stealth worse than a BB, and then nerf them till they look like wounded sperm whales. oops, shouldn't give them ideas.

4) repeating #1: trollers, [edited] off.

thank you. have fun.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,029 posts

Hmmm... so you want a system where the planes are given orders before launch and then can't be changed afterward?  They would just go where you tell them before take-off and attack if there's something in the area?  Or attack a specific target from a predetermined angle?  So, you order your squadrons, wait the couple of minutes until they're in the air, wait the additional five minutes or so for them to get where they're going and get back to be commanded again.  Sounds exciting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,201
[PVE]
Members
12,067 posts
21,313 battles

So this is a submarine thread. How about this one. Corgi Captain seen in submarine. Literally.

Halloween-corgi-chompers-e1382551300585.jpg.cd2c174af1a827c176ac8b1eb2345e58.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
8,087 battles
45 minutes ago, not_acceptable said:

3) submarines. WG has shown us how badly they can mess up a class of ships with CVs, but this is not a good reason to be leaving out one of the major classes of ships in WW1 and WW2. seriously, how tough can it be? I mean, the worst they could do is to give the sub skippers control over torps after firing, or give them UW strafe, or stealth worse than a BB, and then nerf them till they look like wounded sperm whales. oops, shouldn't give them ideas.

cow.gif.9e4d01580ca0b8152fa1aed5fba90a5b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,000
[CREDO]
Members
2,457 posts
9,230 battles
6 minutes ago, AspiringCodger said:

Hmmm... so you want a system where the planes are given orders before launch and then can't be changed afterward?  They would just go where you tell them before take-off and attack if there's something in the area?  Or attack a specific target from a predetermined angle?  So, you order your squadrons, wait the couple of minutes until they're in the air, wait the additional five minutes or so for them to get where they're going and get back to be commanded again.  Sounds exciting. 

sort of like firing guns on a BB and waiting till they reload? except you have multiple groups, with torps, bombers, and the BB only has guns? yeah, good point. or if you're in a DD with 2 min reload, and waiting for your torps to miss because they have 1.8 km detection? and if you fire your guns, you are detected and deleted? yeah, I see your point. completely different.

 

34 minutes ago, _Luna said:

I think WG has already adequately explained why there are no submarines.

 

WG said so. moron response.

4 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

cow.gif.9e4d01580ca0b8152fa1aed5fba90a5b

gif. moron response.

6 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

Well I'm no troll but i need to say it.

wwhIoDu.gif

actually, no, your posting a gif said it all, you are a troll and moron.

 

9 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

So this is a submarine thread. How about this one. Corgi Captain seen in submarine. Literally.

Halloween-corgi-chompers-e1382551300585.jpg.cd2c174af1a827c176ac8b1eb2345e58.jpg

pick on less than 1/3rd of what I wrote, with a gif included. moron troll post.

this is EXACTLY what I referred to when I wrote that trolls demonstrate how stupid a moron can be. not even one cogent comment. [edited] off.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
8,087 battles
Just now, not_acceptable said:

sort of like firing guns on a BB and waiting till they reload? except you have multiple groups, with torps, bombers, and the BB only has guns? yeah, good point. or if you're in a DD with 2 min reload, and waiting for your torps to miss because they have 1.8 km detection? and if you fire your guns, you are detected and deleted? yeah, I see your point. completely different.

 

WG said so. moron response.

gif. moron response.

actually, no, your posting a gif said it all, you are a troll and moron.

 

pick on less than 1/3rd of what I wrote, with a gif included. moron troll post.

this is EXACTLY what I referred to when I wrote that trolls demonstrate how stupid a moron can be. not even one cogent comment. [edited] off.

Fine I'll just let Vader say it.

c7f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
436
Alpha Tester
884 posts
3,403 battles
3 minutes ago, not_acceptable said:

this is EXACTLY what I referred to when I wrote that trolls demonstrate how stupid a moron can be. not even one cogent comment. [edited] off.

I dunno. I think the Chieftain explains pretty succinctly why there are no subs.

And besides, what more reason does WG need to not include something in their game, other than "Because we said so."

You're like that bratty 7 year old that asks "Why?" repeatedly when mommy or daddy says something you don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,207 posts
5,424 battles

"everyone who disagrees with me is a moron!! only my point of view is correct!!!1!11oneoneone"

 

that about sum this thread up? great. moving on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
8,087 battles
9 minutes ago, not_acceptable said:

sort of like firing guns on a BB and waiting till they reload? except you have multiple groups, with torps, bombers, and the BB only has guns? yeah, good point. or if you're in a DD with 2 min reload, and waiting for your torps to miss because they have 1.8 km detection? and if you fire your guns, you are detected and deleted? yeah, I see your point. completely different.

 

WG said so. moron response.

gif. moron response.

actually, no, your posting a gif said it all, you are a troll and moron.

 

pick on less than 1/3rd of what I wrote, with a gif included. moron troll post.

this is EXACTLY what I referred to when I wrote that trolls demonstrate how stupid a moron can be. not even one cogent comment. [edited] off.

372.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,029 posts
3 minutes ago, not_acceptable said:

sort of like firing guns on a BB and waiting till they reload? except you have multiple groups, with torps, bombers, and the BB only has guns? yeah, good point. or if you're in a DD with 2 min reload, and waiting for your torps to miss because they have 1.8 km detection? and if you fire your guns, you are detected and deleted? yeah, I see your point. completely different.

 

 

So, you're comparing maneuvering your BB while waiting 30 seconds for a reload and relocating, planning, providing cover for your team etc. while torps are reloading in your DD to waiting seven plus minutes for planes to return to your CV?  Also, if you aren't finding yourself in positions to use your guns regardless of what DD you're in, you're doing it wrong.

 

Also...

eb6.jpg.462cd44fca69ae898faaa8faf5c3dc42.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
957
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
2,488 posts
29,214 battles
1 hour ago, not_acceptable said:

2) CVs need a major revision of gameplay. no other class in the game can control weapons once fired, with the exception of those that have a special relationship with RNG. WG manages to retain a tenuous, loose grip on reality based gameplay with all other classes excepting CVs. CV skippers were not able to micromanage attacks made by their flight groups much more than a BB captain can alter where a shell goes once fired. they had priority targets, or tasks that, for the most part, once assigned and launched, the group leaders, combat conditions and SOPs controlled. CV admirals did not fly with, nor direct, their air groups. they determined where to go, the areas to be searched, and how many search planes to send, how many fighters to launch, the load and where to send the ..... etc etc and then sat on their asses waiting for news, returning planes, and preparing for incoming attacks or the next outgoing attacks. substantially different than what we now have in the game. the manual drops, strafing and nerfs are flat out crazy. bad crazy. my own personal opinion is if CV skippers are off flying with an air group, the ship itself should be AFK. there are no crews in WoWs to take over while you're gone.

You are aware these are planes with people in them, not rockets, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
2,225 posts
6,440 battles
2 hours ago, not_acceptable said:

hi 

1) trollers are demonstrating how stupid morons can be. they do this with gifs, statements like 'WG said so', stat and experience shaming, and salt. they need to be banned from the forum, or given their own separate area where they can bring humiliation and shame upon themselves without infecting the rest of us. disagree with what somebody wrote? no problem! but express yourself in other ways than stupidity.

2) CVs need a major revision of gameplay. no other class in the game can control weapons once fired, with the exception of those that have a special relationship with RNG. WG manages to retain a tenuous, loose grip on reality based gameplay with all other classes excepting CVs. CV skippers were not able to micromanage attacks made by their flight groups much more than a BB captain can alter where a shell goes once fired. they had priority targets, or tasks that, for the most part, once assigned and launched, the group leaders, combat conditions and SOPs controlled. CV admirals did not fly with, nor direct, their air groups. they determined where to go, the areas to be searched, and how many search planes to send, how many fighters to launch, the load and where to send the ..... etc etc and then sat on their asses waiting for news, returning planes, and preparing for incoming attacks or the next outgoing attacks. substantially different than what we now have in the game. the manual drops, strafing and nerfs are flat out crazy. bad crazy. my own personal opinion is if CV skippers are off flying with an air group, the ship itself should be AFK. there are no crews in WoWs to take over while you're gone.

3) submarines. WG has shown us how badly they can mess up a class of ships with CVs, but this is not a good reason to be leaving out one of the major classes of ships in WW1 and WW2. seriously, how tough can it be? I mean, the worst they could do is to give the sub skippers control over torps after firing, or give them UW strafe, or stealth worse than a BB, and then nerf them till they look like wounded sperm whales. oops, shouldn't give them ideas.

4) repeating #1: trollers, [edited] off.

thank you. have fun.

 

Ok then, let me respond to your entire post. 

1) Just as long as we agree that people who disagree with you are not trolls, I'm fine with this first statement. 

2)  CV's do need a revision in gameplay, but not in the way you are advocating.  The ability of a CV player to control their squadrons is no different than a battleships aiming it's guns and deciding where and when to shoot.  The Admiral or Captain on that battleship isn't actually doing the aiming or even doing the shooting.  The crew of the ship is doing that. Carrier planes are a similar extension of this concept.  They are the crew doing their jobs and determining which target they are going to attack and how.  In addition, unless we introduce kamikaze pilots into the mix, the planes themselves are not the munitions, but bombs and torpedoes they carry are.  In this game, the carrier player has the ability to aim those bombs and torpedoes just like the battleship player aims their ships guns. 

What is needed in CV game play is a better interface which simplifies the carrier players ability to control all of the elements of their air group so that players can more easily grasp and implement effective game play. At the present time, the learning curve for carriers is too steep (especially at T6) which tends to steer players into other types of vessels in which the game play is easier to grasp.   

3)  Submarines should not be in WOWS.  This isn't because submarines didn't exist nor because they weren't an important element during the war, it's because they never ever ever ever at any time participated in significant fleet actions.  This was because they were entirely unsuited nor designed for such combat so, including them in WOWS as it is currently structured makes zero sense, that is unless you prefer that the game move closer to something that has no ties to reality.  When that happens I'm going to demand that WG move to the inclusion of Laser Armed Scuba Hamsters and Parachute Nuclear Toads.

4)  Have a nice day. 

 

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,112 posts
1,111 battles
44 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

Well I'm no troll but i need to say it.

wwhIoDu.gif

 

I will keep reporting you every time you post this [edited]GIF.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
8,087 battles
7 minutes ago, JojoTheMongol said:

 

I will keep reporting you every time you post this [edited]GIF.

raf,750x1000,075,t,353d77:4d8b4ffd91.u1.

You will be reporting a lot my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,709
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
6,051 posts

Back in the bad old days of World War and gas rationing, they used to post signs in places where travelers were likely to be found.

Is this trip really necessary?

Perhaps a rewrite is in order.

Is this troll really necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
147 posts
385 battles
2 hours ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

 

Ok then, let me respond to your entire post. 

1) Just as long as we agree that people who disagree with you are not trolls, I'm fine with this first statement. 

2)  CV's do need a revision in gameplay, but not in the way you are advocating.  The ability of a CV player to control their squadrons is no different than a battleships aiming it's guns and deciding where and when to shoot.  The Admiral or Captain on that battleship isn't actually doing the aiming or even doing the shooting.  The crew of the ship is doing that. Carrier planes are a similar extension of this concept.  They are the crew doing their jobs and determining which target they are going to attack and how.  In addition, unless we introduce kamikaze pilots into the mix, the planes themselves are not the munitions, but bombs and torpedoes they carry are.  In this game, the carrier player has the ability to aim those bombs and torpedoes just like the battleship player aims their ships guns. 

What is needed in CV game play is a better interface which simplifies the carrier players ability to control all of the elements of their air group so that players can more easily grasp and implement effective game play. At the present time, the learning curve for carriers is too steep (especially at T6) which tends to steer players into other types of vessels in which the game play is easier to grasp.   

3)  Submarines should not be in WOWS.  This isn't because submarines didn't exist nor because they weren't an important element during the war, it's because they never ever ever ever at any time participated in significant fleet actions.  This was because they were entirely unsuited nor designed for such combat so, including them in WOWS as it is currently structured makes zero sense, that is unless you prefer that the game move closer to something that has no ties to reality.  When that happens I'm going to demand that WG move to the inclusion of Laser Armed Scuba Hamsters and Parachute Nuclear Toads.

4)  Have a nice day. 

 

yeah, you make more sense than not

2 hours ago, MidnightShamalan said:

"everyone who disagrees with me is a moron!! only my point of view is correct!!!1!11oneoneone"

 

that about sum this thread up? great. moving on.

your reading comprehension really isn't very good is it? you post is myopic, moronic, and sums up troll responses quite admirably. I appreciate that you are moving on, please keep doing so.

Edited by wonderwanker
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,000
[CREDO]
Members
2,457 posts
9,230 battles
3 hours ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

 

Ok then, let me respond to your entire post. 

1) Just as long as we agree that people who disagree with you are not trolls, I'm fine with this first statement. 

2)  CV's do need a revision in gameplay, but not in the way you are advocating.  The ability of a CV player to control their squadrons is no different than a battleships aiming it's guns and deciding where and when to shoot.  The Admiral or Captain on that battleship isn't actually doing the aiming or even doing the shooting.  The crew of the ship is doing that. Carrier planes are a similar extension of this concept.  They are the crew doing their jobs and determining which target they are going to attack and how.  In addition, unless we introduce kamikaze pilots into the mix, the planes themselves are not the munitions, but bombs and torpedoes they carry are.  In this game, the carrier player has the ability to aim those bombs and torpedoes just like the battleship player aims their ships guns. 

What is needed in CV game play is a better interface which simplifies the carrier players ability to control all of the elements of their air group so that players can more easily grasp and implement effective game play. At the present time, the learning curve for carriers is too steep (especially at T6) which tends to steer players into other types of vessels in which the game play is easier to grasp.   

3)  Submarines should not be in WOWS.  This isn't because submarines didn't exist nor because they weren't an important element during the war, it's because they never ever ever ever at any time participated in significant fleet actions.  This was because they were entirely unsuited nor designed for such combat so, including them in WOWS as it is currently structured makes zero sense, that is unless you prefer that the game move closer to something that has no ties to reality.  When that happens I'm going to demand that WG move to the inclusion of Laser Armed Scuba Hamsters and Parachute Nuclear Toads.

4)  Have a nice day. 

 

1) it's apparent that you disagree with my suggestions (if not the reason for making them), which is just fine. I do not find your response trollish in any way. in fact, it was good reading, and I agree with most of what you wrote.

2) after reading your comments, and considering what I suggested, am thinking my suggestion would create more boredom and time for battlechat, so probably not such a good idea. but I would like to see strafing eliminated. 

3) when you put it in terms of the current state of WoWs, I feel any ship that would serve best as a support ship to the fleet would be out of place. the vast majority of the battles i'm in, most of the players are NOT playing as part of a team, nor paying much attention to the fleet support capabilities of the ships they're in. it could be because most of my battles are played late at night (9pm pacific), and there's a different, far more individual play style at work then. typically, if there is a div, or a clan on a team, that team wins by blowout. subs would really not be much of an anomaly or departure to the solo/yolo playstyle I observe. it's possible that is not the case earlier in the day, but subs might not be out of place weekends either? whether or not they would be totally unsuited for fleet combat it is another subject I have not really given much thought to... again, the current state of the IJN DDs isn't really very effective in fleet combat either. or so I read here in the forum.

4) thank you. you too.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×