Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
SailorDeadpool1XPOIXKita

7.4 dicuss not the rollout of usa cruiser split we hope for.

63 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
1,275 posts
5,789 battles

Hello, So with the news of 

I like to discuss what would define what (Fleeing the battlefield ) for the answer in our views? Because u could have that group who thinks a kiting ship is fleeing the battle because there like the whole team on A and trying to abort a hard push. Or say long ranging Battleship or cruiser who is hitting targets but some would say this would fall under this? 

 

Then again this just going to enter public test and wont be due until like a month from now. But with that said I still believe the usa split is 7.5 and will be out just in time for mother day or before memorial day weekend. 

But nice to know we are moving and very to test 7.4 and incoming nerf to midways are coming. But the buff for shima will be great. But Carrier community is burning like now with news of the nerfs. but with recent new format for battle for the king SL and it 9vs9 tier 10 format. It calls for 1 CV and 3 BB and i really hope wargaming could push this to clan battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,257
[HINON]
Members
8,767 posts
12 minutes ago, 5D_Kitakami_Megatron said:

Hello, So with the news of 

I like to discuss what would define what (Fleeing the battlefield ) for the answer in our views? Because u could have that group who thinks a kiting ship is fleeing the battle because there like the whole team on A and trying to abort a hard push. Or say long ranging Battleship or cruiser who is hitting targets but some would say this would fall under this? 

 

I think perhaps the fleeing the battlefield reference is those who quit the battle before being sunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,156 posts
4,848 battles
11 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

I think perhaps the fleeing the battlefield reference is those who quit the battle before being sunk.


yeah, that's what i thought too. i'm pretty sure it's just their polite way of saying ragequitters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,249 battles

Seriously, I'm not expecting the USN cruiser line split for another month or 2.  I'm in no screaming rush, particularly since those USN CL's seem rather on the weak side.  I'd like them to take all the time they need to get them fun and playable, and not a painful line to grind.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,275 posts
5,789 battles
33 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

I think perhaps the fleeing the battlefield reference is those who quit the battle before being sunk.

yea i am really thinking that what wargaming was thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,602
[INTEL]
Members
8,395 posts
25,183 battles

Looks like no US cruisers til 7.6. good. Then better opportunity to get them right.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
429
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
1,883 posts
3,254 battles

"Inactivity in battle" now comes with penalty... Now players who starts having connection issues in the middle of play, will be punished for things outside of their control.

You do not know the circumstances of them being AFK. Connection issues has been the number 1 reason I've been AFK. Could play for 5 games with no issues, and then bam, random connection problem to the server...

Before one starts punishing players for inactivity, issues like that needs to be fixed.

"Fleeing the battlefield"... how does one determine whether a player left the battlefield? slamming into map edge, which already comes with engine power reduction penalty... Kiting, is that now punishable?


"To be allowed access to battles with real players in Random, Ranked and Scenario Battles, violators will have to play several Co-op battles against bots." Those who plays co-op, are now trouble-makers. Sorry to those who play strictly co-op, you have to have the bad apples, because screw you guys. That's what I am gathering from the quoted statement: Devs don't like Co-Op players.


"This carrier used to be on a par with her main adversary, Japanese Hakuryu, in short battles, but due to larger stock of airplanes, she demonstrated superiority in protracted battles." Once again, how about instead of nerfing a ship that actually existed, buff the ship that only exists in this game (yeah, not even a paper ship. Devs pulled it from literally no where).

"Active Bots in the Training Room" <--- now remove the carrier cap, so I can play against 12 carrier bots simultaneously, because my god is that scenario fun.

Of everything in there, map changes (especially northern lights), and active bots, are the best news ever. Everything else, with exception of what I mentioned in this post, is "meh" to me personally. Some people may find some of that news more worthy of praise than I do, but not me.

What the heck is with the ranked battle setup though? Tier 8 first, to then end with tier 10, then be moved to a battle for tier 7s only... and only those who achieve rank 1... this makes little sense to me... Give us tier 5 ranked battle, that sounds like a lot more fun.

  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,287 posts
3,583 battles

Hmm I just took my richealiu  captain in my Alsace now I am starting to regret that. Well I suppose I could train up my gascogne captain and put him in the richealiu. Then again I could use Atago for ranked, but I want to be different form everybody else maybe I will rebuy Mogami just for this got tons of unused cptsins lying around anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,275 posts
5,789 battles
46 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

"Inactivity in battle" now comes with penalty... Now players who starts having connection issues in the middle of play, will be punished for things outside of their control.

You do not know the circumstances of them being AFK. Connection issues has been the number 1 reason I've been AFK. Could play for 5 games with no issues, and then bam, random connection problem to the server...

Before one starts punishing players for inactivity, issues like that needs to be fixed.

"Fleeing the battlefield"... how does one determine whether a player left the battlefield? slamming into map edge, which already comes with engine power reduction penalty... Kiting, is that now punishable?


"To be allowed access to battles with real players in Random, Ranked and Scenario Battles, violators will have to play several Co-op battles against bots." Those who plays co-op, are now trouble-makers. Sorry to those who play strictly co-op, you have to have the bad apples, because screw you guys. That's what I am gathering from the quoted statement: Devs don't like Co-Op players.


"This carrier used to be on a par with her main adversary, Japanese Hakuryu, in short battles, but due to larger stock of airplanes, she demonstrated superiority in protracted battles." Once again, how about instead of nerfing a ship that actually existed, buff the ship that only exists in this game (yeah, not even a paper ship. Devs pulled it from literally no where).

"Active Bots in the Training Room" <--- now remove the carrier cap, so I can play against 12 carrier bots simultaneously, because my god is that scenario fun.

Of everything in there, map changes (especially northern lights), and active bots, are the best news ever. Everything else, with exception of what I mentioned in this post, is "meh" to me personally. Some people may find some of that news more worthy of praise than I do, but not me.

What the heck is with the ranked battle setup though? Tier 8 first, to then end with tier 10, then be moved to a battle for tier 7s only... and only those who achieve rank 1... this makes little sense to me... Give us tier 5 ranked battle, that sounds like a lot more fun.

17

i remember having max carrier in training room and damm did it crash my internet. But 

 

53 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

"Inactivity in battle" now comes with penalty... Now players who starts having connection issues in the middle of play, will be punished for things outside of their control.

You do not know the circumstances of them being AFK. Connection issues has been the number 1 reason I've been AFK. Could play for 5 games with no issues, and then bam, random connection problem to the server...

Before one starts punishing players for inactivity, issues like that needs to be fixed.

"Fleeing the battlefield"... how does one determine whether a player left the battlefield? slamming into map edge, which already comes with engine power reduction penalty... Kiting, is that now punishable?


"To be allowed access to battles with real players in Random, Ranked and Scenario Battles, violators will have to play several Co-op battles against bots." Those who plays co-op, are now trouble-makers. Sorry to those who play strictly co-op, you have to have the bad apples, because screw you guys. That's what I am gathering from the quoted statement: Devs don't like Co-Op players.


"This carrier used to be on a par with her main adversary, Japanese Hakuryu, in short battles, but due to larger stock of airplanes, she demonstrated superiority in protracted battles." Once again, how about instead of nerfing a ship that actually existed, buff the ship that only exists in this game (yeah, not even a paper ship. Devs pulled it from literally no where).

"Active Bots in the Training Room" <--- now remove the carrier cap, so I can play against 12 carrier bots simultaneously, because my god is that scenario fun.

Of everything in there, map changes (especially northern lights), and active bots, are the best news ever. Everything else, with exception of what I mentioned in this post, is "meh" to me personally. Some people may find some of that news more worthy of praise than I do, but not me.

What the heck is with the ranked battle setup though? Tier 8 first, to then end with tier 10, then be moved to a battle for tier 7s only... and only those who achieve rank 1... this makes little sense to me... Give us tier 5 ranked battle, that sounds like a lot more fun.

hope they can improve connection for the game since most factor of players going afk is unable to connect or reconnect back in. HELL, I had a DC moment last night and I didn't feel like reloading the game last night just to finish my match. I had a fatal error pop up and i proble did about 15-20 matches yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,257
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,769 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

I'm in no screaming rush, particularly since those USN CL's seem rather on the weak side. 

Reviews on the "new" tier 8 Cleveland would certainly support your statement; much to my dismay, I might add.

And, honestly, I thought the "System for Prevention of Unsporting Conduct" a really great joke as it will cause WoW more grief than it will solve problems. The upcoming posts whining in the Forum should be absolutely hilarious.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,275 posts
5,789 battles
6 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Reviews on the "new" tier 8 Cleveland would certainly support your statement; much to my dismay, I might add.

And, honestly, I thought the "System for Prevention of Unsporting Conduct" a really great joke as it will cause WoW more grief than it will solve problems. The upcoming posts whining in the Forum should be absolutely hilarious.

yep i forseen in major issues with this perhaps they hold off untill 7.5 to release the system for prevention of unsporting conduct. Or perhaps wargaming could go more deeper then what current been posted by Gneisenau013. Well with that said we only wait to see when they roll the test server online in couple day from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,292 posts
7,966 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

Seriously, I'm not expecting the USN cruiser line split for another month or 2.  I'm in no screaming rush, particularly since those USN CL's seem rather on the weak side.  I'd like them to take all the time they need to get them fun and playable, and not a painful line to grind.

I completely agree on all points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
617
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,765 posts
1,320 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

Seriously, I'm not expecting the USN cruiser line split for another month or 2.  I'm in no screaming rush, particularly since those USN CL's seem rather on the weak side.  I'd like them to take all the time they need to get them fun and playable, and not a painful line to grind.

Yeah, I figure they'll come when they come.  They release new content pretty fast compared to a lot of games, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
121
[FG]
Members
398 posts
3,709 battles

"not the rollout of usa cruiser split we hope[d] for"

Not sure about everyone else, but given that only a couple of the new ships have JUST entered testing, I'd hope they aren't released for a while. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,116 posts
6,669 battles

I'm not expecting the cruiser split until late may or early june.   i have yet to see the CCs play the other new CLs which means we are still a ways off.(not counting the new cleve)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
617
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,765 posts
1,320 battles
3 minutes ago, Frederick_The_Great said:

I'm not expecting the cruiser split until late may or early june.   i have yet to see the CCs play the other new CLs which means we are still a ways off.(not counting the new cleve)

Yeah, I haven't heard of seeing Dallas, Helena, Seattle, or Worcester out there in game being tested.  We've seen the heavy cruisers and 'new Cleveland', but no news of the 'new' light cruisers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,249 battles
11 minutes ago, Frederick_The_Great said:

I'm not expecting the cruiser split until late may or early june.   i have yet to see the CCs play the other new CLs which means we are still a ways off.(not counting the new cleve)

I'm not even sure if they're in the game client for STs and CCs yet.  Another sign that it'll be a little while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,615 posts
13,377 battles
3 hours ago, Crucis said:

Seriously, I'm not expecting the USN cruiser line split for another month or 2.  I'm in no screaming rush, particularly since those USN CL's seem rather on the weak side.  I'd like them to take all the time they need to get them fun and playable, and not a painful line to grind.

That's what I'm worried about, that WeeGee will give us a tub fulla turds.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[TF03]
Members
739 posts
2,690 battles
4 hours ago, 5D_Kitakami_Megatron said:

But nice to know we are moving and very to test 7.4 and incoming nerf to midways are coming. But the buff for shima will be great. But Carrier community is burning like now with news of the nerfs. but with recent new format for battle for the king SL and it 9vs9 tier 10 format. It calls for 1 CV and 3 BB and i really hope wargaming could push this to clan battles.

the biggest problem CV players have with the midway nerf and by reading about 7.4 there not going to change the tiers off the planes, they dropped the tier off the planes cause off the hanger size, now they nerf the hanger so its lower then hakuryu but they wont change any off the tiers off the planes the main one the tier 8 TB, thats the biggest problem CV players have with the nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,822
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts
4 hours ago, Crucis said:

Seriously, I'm not expecting the USN cruiser line split for another month or 2.  I'm in no screaming rush, particularly since those USN CL's seem rather on the weak side.  I'd like them to take all the time they need to get them fun and playable, and not a painful line to grind.

I think it will happen end of May around the 23rd just my guess. who else has a guess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[-AVA-]
Members
135 posts
7,153 battles
4 hours ago, Counter_Gambit said:

"Fleeing the battlefield"... how does one determine whether a player left the battlefield? slamming into map edge, which already comes with engine power reduction penalty... Kiting, is that now punishable?

giphy.gif

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
573 posts
4,504 battles

Some very interesting topics here. 

Ranked caught my eyes, ranks 10-1 tier X vessels only.

No premium ships to dilute the tree's so this makes a marked change.

The new inactivity change or rage quitting is also good. I think the server can tell that you have gone 'exit to port', as people tend to start another vessel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
594
[TF57]
Members
1,230 posts
3,915 battles
Quote

"Inactivity in battle" now comes with penalty... Now players who starts having connection issues in the middle of play, will be punished for things outside of their control.

You do not know the circumstances of them being AFK. Connection issues has been the number 1 reason I've been AFK. Could play for 5 games with no issues, and then bam, random connection problem to the server...

Before one starts punishing players for inactivity, issues like that needs to be fixed.

Well people who knowingly play with poor connectivity perhaps deserve to be punished.  If they are going to drop out of every 3rd game leaving their team high and dry, it's the same effect on everyone else as if they'd minimised WoWs to surf images of cats or unclad ladies.

If you were to join a sport team, knowing you'd miss every 3rd game due to a unreliable car, and leave your team to play a man down...  your team mates would think you are a tiresome jerk.  Why should online be different?

EDIT: And if it only happens rarely, then you'll only rarely be punished....  so not a big deal

Edited by evilleMonkeigh
  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×