Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Final8ty

Great ūüĎć

47 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

937
[TMS]
Members
3,351 posts

129 battles total so thinks its time to jump to T10 and jumps into a midway.

fgreat.thumb.png.ca4cf00188cfda353f6bea05e6535bf9.png

unknown.png

fgreat2.thumb.png.9884bf09b2b602acc8a2c965efa972d5.png

  • Funny 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[AAYC]
Members
51 posts
7,915 battles

seems fair for this game.  this is what weegee want

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,750
[FML]
Members
3,942 posts
15,503 battles
7 minutes ago, Final8ty said:

129 battles total so thinks its time to jump to T10 and jumps into a midway.

fgreat.thumb.png.ca4cf00188cfda353f6bea05e6535bf9.png

unknown.png

fgreat2.thumb.png.9884bf09b2b602acc8a2c965efa972d5.png

You know, 750 base XP on a loss isnt so bad - particularly against the kind of AA that the enemy team had. 

Most of my teams recently have been struggling to get over 300 base XP, let alone 500, in these steamrolls.  Last night, I had 7 players under 300 base XP, and 10 players (all but me) on less than 500.  It was a complete disaster. 

I'd take that guy over all of the people on that team.  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,046
[ARGSY]
Members
20,150 posts
14,332 battles
11 minutes ago, Final8ty said:

129 battles total so thinks its time to jump to T10 and jumps into a midway.

And yet he still took home more Base XP than the worst player on the WINNING team.

Following one line straight up to the exclusion of all others is one of the biggest mistakes a player can make in this game, but if we constrained the way in which people progressed we'd be tyrants. And if WG did it, the salt you're spilling over your Midway n00b would be insignificant by comparison.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
937
[TMS]
Members
3,351 posts
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

And yet he still took home more Base XP than the worst player on the WINNING team.

Following one line straight up to the exclusion of all others is one of the biggest mistakes a player can make in this game, but if we constrained the way in which people progressed we'd be tyrants. And if WG did it, the salt you're spilling over your Midway n00b would be insignificant by comparison.

Beating the worst on the red team is no achievement to me, but you have a right to your opinion.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,729
[INTEL]
Members
13,067 posts
36,061 battles

Yep, doing exactly what the devs wanted from CVs: creating collapses and getting players back into queue as rapidly as possible. The devs simply don't care about game play quality and are delighted if the players have a short, crappy game. Really sucks for those of us who love this game.

@Final8ty why do you still play T10? This crap is more common there than anywhere else, the play is abysmal and it seems I seldom get the good CV player. I have quit playing T10 and will stop T8 as well, since being uptiered into the crappy T10 meta is so unfun. T9 remains good. I am having a lot more fun at T5-7 these days -- the one silver lining of the otherwise transcendentally stupid ReBork was that T5 seems to be uptiered to T7 less. 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,046
[ARGSY]
Members
20,150 posts
14,332 battles
18 minutes ago, Final8ty said:

Beating the worst on the red team is no achievement to me

No, it's not; I'm merely making the point that your team had the better potato. The only reason the other side wasn't here raging about their Worcester captain was because they did win; in a closer fight or a loss, they might have had something to say about it.

Look up the other potato's stats; it might cast your Midway captain in a somewhat different light.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
937
[TMS]
Members
3,351 posts
1 minute ago, Taichunger said:

Yep, doing exactly what the devs wanted from CVs: creating collapses and getting players back into queue as rapidly as possible. The devs simply don't care about game play quality and are delighted if the players have a short, crappy game. Really sucks for those of us who love this game.

@Final8ty why do you still play T10? This crap is more common there than anywhere else, the play is abysmal and it seems I seldom get the good CV player. I have quit playing T10 and will stop T8 as well, since being uptiered into the crappy T10 meta is so unfun. T9 remains good. I am having a lot more fun at T5-7 these days -- the one silver lining of the otherwise transcendentally stupid ReBork was that T5 seems to be uptiered to T7 less. 

 

I like to play shima thats why.

I play my kita a bit more now but it gets boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
937
[TMS]
Members
3,351 posts
12 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

No, it's not; I'm merely making the point that your team had the better potato. The only reason the other side wasn't here raging about their Worcester captain was because they did win; in a closer fight or a loss, they might have had something to say about it.

Look up the other potato's stats; it might cast your Midway captain in a somewhat different light.

The first pic is from MMM which i cut off the other players, i already knew he was the worst player in the battles but it does not change how i think about our CV in anyway.

If there was someone who ran around shooting people 10 times each and another who shot people 11 times each i don't think most people would care about that difference, they would care about the fact they they are going around shooting people..

Edited by Final8ty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,046
[ARGSY]
Members
20,150 posts
14,332 battles
5 minutes ago, Final8ty said:

i already knew he was the worst player in the battles but it does not change how i think about our CV in anyway.

Oh for sure.

The real problem here is that as long as you have people who love naval history and fall hard for a particular ship, you will get people who will grind a line in blinkered fashion to get that ship. Fortunately for me, some of my favourites are either not in the game and probably never will be (Baltimore- and Cleveland-derived Talos and Terrier missile cruisers), at lower tiers where it doesn't matter as much (Warspite, QE, Nelson), or I'll get to them at a point where I was already at Tier 10 anyway (Daring). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
937
[TMS]
Members
3,351 posts
8 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Oh for sure.

The real problem here is that as long as you have people who love naval history and fall hard for a particular ship, you will get people who will grind a line in blinkered fashion to get that ship. Fortunately for me, some of my favourites are either not in the game and probably never will be (Baltimore- and Cleveland-derived Talos and Terrier missile cruisers), at lower tiers where it doesn't matter as much (Warspite, QE, Nelson), or I'll get to them at a point where I was already at Tier 10 anyway (Daring). 

The multiple CVs has spoiled the lower tiers for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,046
[ARGSY]
Members
20,150 posts
14,332 battles
6 minutes ago, Final8ty said:

The multiple CVs has spoiled the lower tiers for me.

On that we must agree to differ.

CV can be mitigated early-game by staying close enough to cruisers or battleships that you can double back inside their AA when you see the planes coming. They often lose interest when that happens, because it weakens their squadrons to keep on attacking incessantly into heavy AA fire and then they become ineffective in the late game (especially Saipan and Indomitable, which have very small deck parks) when they can't regenerate their squadrons quickly enough to be useful.

@Destroyer_KuroshioKai's YouTube channel has some vids which show how to mitigate the effect of CV on destroyers, and because of him I have no fear of carriers any more even if I do sometimes get rekt by planes. Living on both sides of the CV/DD fence, I can accept that because I know my next game could easily be a CV battle where my team might need me to get that DD kill. 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
937
[TMS]
Members
3,351 posts
20 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

On that we must agree to differ.

CV can be mitigated early-game by staying close enough to cruisers or battleships that you can double back inside their AA when you see the planes coming. They often lose interest when that happens, because it weakens their squadrons to keep on attacking incessantly into heavy AA fire and then they become ineffective in the late game (especially Saipan and Indomitable, which have very small deck parks) when they can't regenerate their squadrons quickly enough to be useful.

@Destroyer_KuroshioKai's YouTube channel has some vids which show how to mitigate the effect of CV on destroyers, and because of him I have no fear of carriers any more even if I do sometimes get rekt by planes. Living on both sides of the CV/DD fence, I can accept that because I know my next game could easily be a CV battle where my team might need me to get that DD kill. 

There is nothing you have said here which i have not already done and i know its effectiveness.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
137
[WW2]
Members
354 posts
6,885 battles

One of the things that made navy field so hard was the grind. Even with premium you were looking at several hundreds of games to make it to top tier if you were lucky. One thing that is attractive in this game its it's tough but not impossible grind. Myself I didn't have a tier 10 for over a year and when I did I bought Salem for ranked which wasn't the best move. My choice though. Anyway can't fault the guy for wanting to play but to be honest if he can make it to tier 10 that fast in a carrier he can't be all that bad I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
937
[TMS]
Members
3,351 posts
2 hours ago, tjaluk said:

seems fair for this game.  this is what weegee want

 

Indeed you are right.

The next battle and i thought it was the same guy for a moment.

 

another1.thumb.png.071514f8f6f374869ebe80e6de5c7699.png

another3.thumb.png.3985cf4b46bf813a25c212317cdbdd53.png

Edited by Final8ty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts

damn do we need permission now before we spend money supporting the game?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
937
[TMS]
Members
3,351 posts
22 minutes ago, Darmokattenagra said:

One of the things that made navy field so hard was the grind. Even with premium you were looking at several hundreds of games to make it to top tier if you were lucky. One thing that is attractive in this game its it's tough but not impossible grind. Myself I didn't have a tier 10 for over a year and when I did I bought Salem for ranked which wasn't the best move. My choice though. Anyway can't fault the guy for wanting to play but to be honest if he can make it to tier 10 that fast in a carrier he can't be all that bad I think. 

It's called having a Good wallet before knowing how to control what you bought.

like new drivers who have money to spend on high performance cars as soon as they get their licence and don't have the experience to drive them so they get wrecked. 

Edited by Final8ty
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,002
[IRNBN]
Members
3,387 posts
9,803 battles
2 hours ago, Taichunger said:

 I am having a lot more fun at T5-7 these days -- the one silver lining of the otherwise transcendentally stupid ReBork was that T5 seems to be uptiered to T7 less. 

     Comrade, we must put a stop to this counter-revolutionary "fun" and instill proper Soviet WG frustration.

     Stavka has decided that CV have not sufficiently destroyed your fun, so we will soon introduce glorious new people's submarines to complete your re-education.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,008
[RLGN]
Members
14,306 posts
25,245 battles
3 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

@Destroyer_KuroshioKai’s YouTube channel has some vids which show how to mitigate the effect of CV on destroyers, and because of him I have no fear of carriers any more even if I do sometimes get rekt by planes. Living on both sides of the CV/DD fence, I can accept that because I know my next game could easily be a CV battle where my team might need me to get that DD kill. 

This.

3 hours ago, Final8ty said:

There is nothing you have said here which i have not already done and i know its effectiveness.

EC is well aware of how much I consider the rework to be garbage, yet the two of us are in agreement as far a dealing with them is concerned.

They annoy me because I can’t go where I want when I have to avoid them; time spent doing so is time lost; I hate their damn guts for swooping down like a vulture when my ship is almost dead, but whatever. I deal with it and move on.

What surprises me more than anything else is someone with 40-50% more games than me still being bothered by carriers.

The reason I think this is so is actually quite impressive in its own right.

Edited by Estimated_Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,305
Members
2,640 posts
4,263 battles
4 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

On that we must agree to differ.

CV can be mitigated early-game by staying close enough to cruisers or battleships that you can double back inside their AA when you see the planes coming. They often lose interest when that happens, because it weakens their squadrons to keep on attacking incessantly into heavy AA fire and then they become ineffective in the late game (especially Saipan and Indomitable, which have very small deck parks) when they can't regenerate their squadrons quickly enough to be useful.

@Destroyer_KuroshioKai's YouTube channel has some vids which show how to mitigate the effect of CV on destroyers, and because of him I have no fear of carriers any more even if I do sometimes get rekt by planes. Living on both sides of the CV/DD fence, I can accept that because I know my next game could easily be a CV battle where my team might need me to get that DD kill. 

That's the problem,  man.  They don't want to minimize whats done,  they want to prevent it entirely.  They want AA that destroys squads before they can drop,  or its bad AA to them.  Shells dropping in from 25km out?  Thats fine,  completely okay to deal with that.  Take some modules, stay with other AA heavy ships to deal with planes,  turn off AA as a DD and work around planes?  Nah brah,  way to much effort!  Change the game!

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,046
[ARGSY]
Members
20,150 posts
14,332 battles
52 minutes ago, Palladia said:

Shells dropping in from 25km out?  Thats fine,  completely okay to deal with that.

I suspect some of them are running Incoming Fire Alert, which basically tells you the number of seconds you have left to live if you stay where you are right now. Between that and Priority Target, it's not hard to avoid those across-the-map Hail Mary shots. But I take your point; certain problems imposed by surface gunfire sometimes don't get mentioned when the topic of DD vulnerability to aircraft comes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
937
[TMS]
Members
3,351 posts
1 hour ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

This.

EC is well aware of how much I consider the rework to be garbage, yet the two of us are in agreement as far a dealing with them is concerned.

They annoy me because I can’t go where I want when I have to avoid them; time spent doing so is time lost; I hate their damn guts for swooping down like a vulture when my ship is almost dead, but whatever. I deal with it and move on.

What surprises me more than anything else is someone with 40-50% more games than me still being bothered by carriers.

The reason I think this is so is actually quite impressive in its own right.

You contradict yourself with those 2 lines.

You are bothered by them but then you say i should not be bothered them, they annoy you too like you said..

You are a mid tier player who is also not a DD main.

When i play My BBs and Cruisers at mid tier i ignore the CV pretty much if there is only one and at high tier i dont blink an eye when in a BB.

So there is nothing about impressive  in its own right when you are comparing apples to oranges in experience when im pretty much exclusive T10 and T9 with an avg  tier of 8.5 when you have an avg tier of 5.4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,305
Members
2,640 posts
4,263 battles
2 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I suspect some of them are running Incoming Fire Alert, which basically tells you the number of seconds you have left to live if you stay where you are right now. Between that and Priority Target, it's not hard to avoid those across-the-map Hail Mary shots. But I take your point; certain problems imposed by surface gunfire sometimes don't get mentioned when the topic of DD vulnerability to aircraft comes up.

But that just reinforces my point,  that a lot of these people are fine with taking steps to combat other ship types except for one.  They'll take skills to deal with fires and floods or to lessen the impact from stealth ships or what have you but won't do the same for CV's.  Its just...I dunno.  Inane?  Stupefying?  And that also boils down to tactics for dealing with CV's.  If a DD sinks a BB whose not trying to avoid him or what have you then that's fine apparently,  'change speed and direction and be unpredictable to fight that enemy you can't see!'  But when you try to give them advice for dealing with CV planes suddenly its not okay to have to play differently?  In spite of the fact that a DD is far more dangerous to anything its counter to than a CV is to it,  its not okay that they have to work to counter them.

And for the record I'm not complaining about DD's or BB's or anything,  I'm just saying that every ship has things you can do in order to lessen their impact but it just seems like some people like to pick and choose which ones are okay to have in game and which ones aren't.  My apologies,  end rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
937
[TMS]
Members
3,351 posts
1 hour ago, Palladia said:

That's the problem,  man.  They don't want to minimize whats done,  they want to prevent it entirely.  They want AA that destroys squads before they can drop,  or its bad AA to them.  Shells dropping in from 25km out?  Thats fine,  completely okay to deal with that.  Take some modules, stay with other AA heavy ships to deal with planes,  turn off AA as a DD and work around planes?  Nah brah,  way to much effort!  Change the game!

So what do you say to the DD players who turn there AA off and make great efforts to work around the planes like i do ?

What i tend to get a lot is ""DD where are you going" i say don't you see the planes.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×