Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
CriMiNaL__

The Wish List (complaints)

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,120
[KP]
Beta Testers
2,591 posts
12,334 battles

Give the Khab Back its 15.6 km range and 10km torps

The Hsf Harekaze, when fitted with the Akazuki turrets, with BFT they should have the same range as the Akazuki as the're the same turret

Make the Fubuki T8 again

Last but not least, hurry up and sell the Asashio

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,352 posts
1,345 battles
9 minutes ago, Octavian_of_Roma said:

Put ATL and Belfast back in doubloon please.

 

I find you lack of love for Kutuzov disturbing.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,128
[USCC2]
Members
4,764 posts

I have a dream:

That any person who chooses to play this war game (where Survival, Damage, earning Credits and XP are the main factors), will have an equal/balanced opportunity to Survive, cause Damage, earn Credits and XP, whatever ship they choose to play in. :Smile_honoring:

Edited by _WaveRider_
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
637
[LUCK]
Members
1,656 posts
23,002 battles
4 hours ago, Octavian_of_Roma said:

 

Dont allow MM more than 3 DDs BBs per team, seeing 30 torps coming from every angle gets annoying in high tiers.

 

Small error, I fixed it.

Edited by hofmannsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[VIP-2]
Members
814 posts
2,919 battles
4 hours ago, Octavian_of_Roma said:

Dont allow MM more than 4 DDs per team, seeing 30 torps coming from every angle gets annoying in high tiers.

Ughh, a match on thursday 5dd, 1ca, 5bb, 1cv, each side. It sucked, especially cause one side got the gunboats the other got the concealed/torp

3 is good, 4 pushing it for DDs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[-AGW-]
Members
685 posts
3,886 battles
5 hours ago, _WaveRider_ said:

I have a dream:

That any person who chooses to play this war game (where Survival, Damage, earning Credits and XP are the main factors), will have an equal/balanced opportunity to Survive, cause Damage, earn Credits and XP, whatever ship they choose to play in. :Smile_honoring:

There is a reason why the ratings for NASCAR have dropped. Forced equality is boring. 

Why would you expect that a stock Colberg should earn the same XP and credits a 19pt Mogami can?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,128
[USCC2]
Members
4,764 posts
1 minute ago, Skarp_AGW said:

There is a reason why the ratings for NASCAR have dropped. Forced equality is boring. 

Why would you expect that a stock Colberg should earn the same XP and credits a 19pt Mogami can?

If the ships are in the same tier I expect balance in a game where survival, damage, credits and XP are the main factors. Why would you expect a game not to give people an equal chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[-AGW-]
Members
685 posts
3,886 battles
1 minute ago, _WaveRider_ said:

If the ships are in the same tier I expect balance in a game where survival, damage, credits and XP are the main factors. Why would you expect a game not to give people an equal chance?

Not everyone has the same playstyle. The Tier system already makes an effort to group ships of similar  (not identical) abilities.

Forcing all the ships of a given type at a given tier to be identical would be boring. They would basically be the same ship reskinned for each country. No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,128
[USCC2]
Members
4,764 posts
3 minutes ago, Skarp_AGW said:

Not everyone has the same playstyle. The Tier system already makes an effort to group ships of similar  (not identical) abilities.

Forcing all the ships of a given type at a given tier to be identical would be boring. They would basically be the same ship reskinned for each country. No thanks.

:Smile_amazed:Your statement is soo wrong, I have to assume you didn't understand what I was saying (my bad):

Of course not everyone has the same playstyle, that is why there are 4 different types of ships in game and then variants within those types. That is why the variety will always be present and ships are not the same, no one is asking for identical ships. 

What I am saying is that if you play well enough in whatever 'different ship' (not identical) you choose to play, then you should have equal chance to survive, cause damage, earn credits and XP. That doesn't sound boring, that sounds fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
187
[JUICE]
Members
824 posts
6,375 battles
1 hour ago, ZARDOZ_II said:

A "No Sky Cancer" mode.  

I bet everyone in WW2 was wishing for this as well..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
300
[LEGIT]
Members
984 posts
7,591 battles
Just now, xXxRCADDICT said:

I bet everyone in WW2 was wishing for this as well..............

Especially the IJN wanted that.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[-AGW-]
Members
685 posts
3,886 battles
3 hours ago, _WaveRider_ said:

:Smile_amazed:Your statement is soo wrong, I have to assume you didn't understand what I was saying (my bad):

Of course not everyone has the same playstyle, that is why there are 4 different types of ships in game and then variants within those types. That is why the variety will always be present and ships are not the same, no one is asking for identical ships. 

What I am saying is that if you play well enough in whatever 'different ship' (not identical) you choose to play, then you should have equal chance to survive, cause damage, earn credits and XP. That doesn't sound boring, that sounds fair.

OK, I guess I was not understanding what you meant by "equal chance".

I enjoy the fact that there is a lot of disparity in the ships. The "skill floor" and "skill ceiling" that LWM references in her reviews. Some people hate the Perth, while others think it is awesome. There is something out there for everybody.

I suppose that means I support the status quo. Ha, now that sounds boring.

Good luck, and enjoy your ships. :Smile_honoring:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,128
[USCC2]
Members
4,764 posts
1 hour ago, Skarp_AGW said:

OK, I guess I was not understanding what you meant by "equal chance".

I enjoy the fact that there is a lot of disparity in the ships. The "skill floor" and "skill ceiling" that LWM references in her reviews. Some people hate the Perth, while others think it is awesome. There is something out there for everybody.

I suppose that means I support the status quo. Ha, now that sounds boring.

Good luck, and enjoy your ships. :Smile_honoring:

I think the skill floor/ceiling idea is great as, again, it signifies the ability to score big if you play a difficult ship well (this again for me is balance). However, if a skill ceiling is so high that no one can achieve the high damage that should come from the difficult ship then what is the point? Play big win big, but there must be an equal chance of losing big, otherwise there is no balance.

Personally I believe there is too big a difference between ships within the tiers in the core areas of this war game.

Appreciate your view on things and the discussion. :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
111
[VNES]
Members
456 posts
6,713 battles
6 hours ago, ZARDOZ_II said:

A "No Sky Cancer" mode.  

Just ban CVs until CV mechanisms are fixed. At the current junction, CV is the determining factor if the random team win or lost. Somehow bad CV players like to be on my team recently.

Other than that, please put our rank into good use. Maybe rank 1 to 10 can play together, 10 to 20 can play together. The skill disparity is too damn huge now that 90% of the winning chance is decided by MM. You no longer win games by trying hard in your game but by getting a better team.

Limit the number of complete roll-over games, it's no fun for both losing and winning side.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×