Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Sniper0921

I want the old version Agir back

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4
[NOCAP]
Members
4 posts
16,835 battles

A secondary large cruiser seems much more fun to play than the current one.

I don't think the older version Agir was op. It was an cruiser after all. The current Agir is really boring to play.

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,816
[WOLFG]
Members
33,672 posts
10,473 battles

Wouldn't you have had to be on the PTS to have played the older version? Hard to judge OPness there, it's a different kettle of fish than full-on Randoms.

Me, I like Agir fine, I use my Hindy captain and play it that way.

I think the main guns are fantastic. They shoot like Konig before they nerfed its dispersion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
404 posts
23 minutes ago, Sniper0921 said:

A secondary large cruiser seems much more fun to play than the current one.

I don't think the older version Agir was op. It was an cruiser after all. The current Agir is really boring to play.

Welcome to every other players' dilemma once they finally get around to breaking your "Baby". 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,816
[WOLFG]
Members
33,672 posts
10,473 battles
3 minutes ago, Capt_Conundrum said:

Welcome to every other players' dilemma once they finally get around to breaking your "Baby". 

The way I look at it is, I met a girl online, fell in love, and then met her in person. 

She looks just like her picture, except she had her fake breasts removed after the picture was taken.

Not a huge deal for many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
404 posts
1 minute ago, Skpstr said:

The way I look at it is, I met a girl online, fell in love, and then met her in person. 

She looks just like her picture, except she had her fake breasts removed after the picture was taken.

Not a huge deal for many.

I generally look for women based on other criteria..

Still, this is a practice that happens in the game that has taken the "Fun" out of a good number of ships for many players.  It could have been done differently and probably with a better result, but it wasnt.  I for my part was simply expressing my empathetic condolences to a fellow player.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,816
[WOLFG]
Members
33,672 posts
10,473 battles
1 minute ago, Capt_Conundrum said:

I generally look for women based on other criteria..

Exactly. One arguably superficial change wouldn't sour you.

1 minute ago, Capt_Conundrum said:

Still, this is a practice that happens in the game that has taken the "Fun" out of a good number of ships for many players.  It could have been done differently and probably with a better result, but it wasnt.  I for my part was simply expressing my empathetic condolences to a fellow player.

Fair enough.

I have trouble remembering not to judge other players by my own standards, even though I advocate against doing just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,823
[1984]
Members
4,482 posts
21,506 battles
14 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

The way I look at it is, I met a girl online, fell in love, and then met her in person. 

She looks just like her picture, except she had her fake breasts removed after the picture was taken.

Not a huge deal for many.

Why on earth would you think fake breasts are better than real? Just buy a pair of basketballs if you want to handle firm plastic...?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
611 posts
7,999 battles
Just now, monpetitloup said:

Why on earth would you think fake breasts are better than real? Just buy a pair of basketballs if you want to handle firm plastic...?

small vs big. your choice but go big or go home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,823
[1984]
Members
4,482 posts
21,506 battles
1 minute ago, Steeler_Nation_USA said:

small vs big. your choice but go big or go home. 

Silicone parts are made for toys

sir mixalot said it best i think

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,816
[WOLFG]
Members
33,672 posts
10,473 battles
7 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

Why on earth would you think fake breasts are better than real? Just buy a pair of basketballs if you want to handle firm plastic...?

Lol first thing I thought of, where you could see a person with something, and then see them without it.

As far as "firm plastic", if they're done right, (ie. not adult film actress style) unless they were done in the 90s, you can really only tell the difference in a pool or hot tub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts

And even better, the previewed Skill Rebork will make her secondaries even more pointless, by stripping Cruisers of the ability to take AFT or something like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,256
[WIB]
Alpha Tester
3,978 posts
2,472 battles
1 hour ago, Capt_Conundrum said:

Welcome to every other players' dilemma once they finally get around to breaking your "Baby". 

 

 

Ain't this the truth.  I remember buying the Blyskawica and then struggling to get the captain skills I needed to take advantage of what made it a great DD, its capability to be a stealth fire gunboat.  I literally just got the skills to do it properly when they removed stealth firing from the game.  Haven't played the Blys since because the ship just feels very mediocre and underwhelming anymore.   Oh I almost forgot. I never was much of a CV player until very recently but got the Saipan for those times when I needed a CV for missions and such.  At the time, the Saipan was considered massively OP due to her Tier 10 planes, now she is considered the worst CV in the game and I find it so unfun to play that I am seriously thinking about selling it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,256
[WIB]
Alpha Tester
3,978 posts
2,472 battles
4 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

And even better, the previewed Skill Rebork will make her secondaries even more pointless, by stripping Cruisers of the ability to take AFT or something like it.

Yeah.  The skill re-work looks interesting but there are a ton of major nerfs hidden in those trees.  I predict that there are ton of ships, especially premiums with their "unique" features, that rely on very specific builds to work properly, that are going to find themselves pretty broken after the change.  

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
404 posts
1 minute ago, Midnitewolf said:

Ain't this the truth.  I remember buying the Blyskawica and then struggling to get the captain skills I needed to take advantage of what made it a great DD, its capability to be a stealth fire gunboat.  I literally just got the skills to do it properly when they removed stealth firing from the game.  Haven't played the Blys since because the ship just feels very mediocre and underwhelming anymore.   Oh I almost forgot. I never was much of a CV player until very recently but got the Saipan for those times when I needed a CV for missions and such.  At the time, the Saipan was considered massively OP due to her Tier 10 planes, now she is considered the worst CV in the game and I find it so unfun to play that I am seriously thinking about selling it.

It's almost as if, if they would just balance the ships based on performance and intended roles and then let player skill do the rest (Instead of changing ships based on a meaningless and ever changing win rate data sheet) it might solve the problem and allow new ship creation to be more of a "Plug and play" affair.  Hmmmm

 

At least then maybe players might be able to learn their ships instead of a bunch of rookies just looking to find whatever the latest ship to have an advantage is and try to rush to get it.

 

(I have the Blys, and like it for what it is.  I also understand that it is nothing like it once was.  I got it for coal at the beginning of the year.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
5 minutes ago, Capt_Conundrum said:

It's almost as if, if they would just balance the ships based on performance and intended roles and then let player skill do the rest (Instead of changing ships based on a meaningless and ever changing win rate data sheet) it might solve the problem and allow new ship creation to be more of a "Plug and play" affair.  Hmmmm

At least then maybe players might be able to learn their ships instead of a bunch of rookies just looking to find whatever the latest ship to have an advantage is and try to rush to get it.

(I have the Blys, and like it for what it is.  I also understand that it is nothing like it once was.  I got it for coal at the beginning of the year.)

Part of the problem with the Skill Rebork appears to be WG trying to impose their vision of each ship type's "intended role".  Thus, cruisers not having certain skills, DDs not having certain skills, etc. 

IMO, this is nonsense, the players should choose how they set up their captains and what they want to emphasize, NOT some dev at Wargaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
404 posts
2 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Part of the problem with the Skill Rebork appears to be WG trying to impose their vision of each ship type's "intended role".  Thus, cruisers not having certain skills, DDs not having certain skills, etc. 

IMO, this is nonsense, the players should choose how they set up their captains and what they want to emphasize, NOT some dev at Wargaming.

It didnt come across that way to me.   What did come across was certain features designed to only aid limited ships within a particular class, or give an entire class a leg up.   I wasnt happy seeing what was planned, but I am waiting to see what the end result is, and that may be worse or it may be better than what is currently listed.  Right now, I am more concerned with further damage being done to the AA system as that is more likely to happen first, and many of those changes will affect the planned skill rework. 

 

Again, its almost to the point where if they would just balance the ships based on.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,256
[WIB]
Alpha Tester
3,978 posts
2,472 battles
1 hour ago, Capt_Conundrum said:

It's almost as if, if they would just balance the ships based on performance and intended roles and then let player skill do the rest (Instead of changing ships based on a meaningless and ever changing win rate data sheet) it might solve the problem and allow new ship creation to be more of a "Plug and play" affair.  Hmmmm

 

At least then maybe players might be able to learn their ships instead of a bunch of rookies just looking to find whatever the latest ship to have an advantage is and try to rush to get it.

 

(I have the Blys, and like it for what it is.  I also understand that it is nothing like it once was.  I got it for coal at the beginning of the year.)

Yeah I have always felt win rate was a meaningless stat especially that at the end of the day many of these win rates are in what I would call margin of error.  I always point to the simple fact that if you flip a coin 10,000 time and repeat flipping it 10,000 times over and over, and calculate the results, the percentage of heads results would probably result in somewhere between 40% and 60% at any given time.  To me seeing one ship at 49% win rate and one at 51% is meaningless at least as to which is better. 

Also let's face another fact, if a ship is perceived as being better, then more top competitive players with the top skills will play those ships.  The average run of the mill scrub, like me, will just play what they like and not worry about which is flavor of the month so much.  This tends to skew the numbers as well in my book.  

1 hour ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Part of the problem with the Skill Rebork appears to be WG trying to impose their vision of each ship type's "intended role".  Thus, cruisers not having certain skills, DDs not having certain skills, etc. 

IMO, this is nonsense, the players should choose how they set up their captains and what they want to emphasize, NOT some dev at Wargaming.

I think it less about role than it is about WG trying to restrict what certain ships are capable of.  For example, I they appear to be removing Survivability expert from the BB lines.  The role of a BB is to tank damage so tell me how removing the ability to buff your HP on a BB by 3500 HPs at max level, doesn't fit within a BBs intended role?

This is why I think so many ships are going to find themselves broken.  WG looks to be trying to redesign the skills to remove anything they don't like about how ships work.  Overall it might actually turn out to be what is best for the game BUT if your unlucky and your favorite ship has features WG doesn't like, your going to be very disappointed.  This is especially true if that ship so happens to be a premium ship you spend a ton of real life money on specifically because you enjoyed the play style.  I will refer you back to my Blys.  That ship can no longer do the thing I specifically bought the ship to do.  Result, I am out hard cash and now don't even play the ship any more.

1 hour ago, Capt_Conundrum said:

It didnt come across that way to me.   What did come across was certain features designed to only aid limited ships within a particular class, or give an entire class a leg up.   I wasnt happy seeing what was planned, but I am waiting to see what the end result is, and that may be worse or it may be better than what is currently listed.  Right now, I am more concerned with further damage being done to the AA system as that is more likely to happen first, and many of those changes will affect the planned skill rework. 

 

Again, its almost to the point where if they would just balance the ships based on.........

If anything AA is too powerful to be honest.  I am not a primary CV player but recently started playing them and having at bit of fun with them but the one thing that stands out to me is how fast AA melts planes.  As long as players actually use teamwork and mutually support one another rather than gallivanting off to the other side of the map by their lonesome,  just a few ships operating near each other make the area a "No Fly Zone" really quick.   Also if the CV is uptiered, especially at higher levels, even a single high tiered ship can end up being a solo "No Fly Zone"  or at least punishing enough that you find yourself struggling to do much damage at all in a CV.  Edit:  Keep in mind that at least with Tier 6 CVs,  getting a full three runs in with planes tends to about the same damage as a single citadel hit and for the CV player, setting those runs up will likely take at least 2 minutes and that only in a situation where his planes don't go poof on the first run.

In all honesty, I think the perception of CVs being too powerful has to do with the fact that the meta hasn't changed enough since the re-work and that the people complaining the most about CVs just haven't adapted yet.   I just recently came back to the game as I mentioned and I didn't really notice it until I started playing CVs but teams are playing in much tighter and closer knit than they used to and less and less players are moving solo.   I am absolutely sure this is in response to CVs, in fact I know it is because I find myself looking for the nearest cluster of teammates whenever there is a CV in game.   If this meta continues to develop, with teams, moving as teams offering mutual AA support like "Real" fleets, CVs will find themselves struggling badly due to how overpowering AA is.  

As far as the new skill trees, I don't see any inherent weakness in the AA, in fact it looks like if you spec AA, you will be getting quite the significant buff to your AA.  The thing is that buffing your AA appears to come at a significant expense in terms of other skills which might make spec'ing AA a hard pill to swallow for most players.  You will just have to give up so many hugely useful,  full time benefits, to buff the situational benefits of AA.  On the other hand, if a player finds CVs to be a horrid bane of his existence, he can spec full AA and won't have to worry about CVs at all....he just won't quite be as good at engaging surface combatants.   I am sure that won't make some people happy but it looks like there will be a way to counter CVs if someone absolutely feels they need to.

Edited by Midnitewolf
Added a few things in the first paragraph.
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
412
[SOCOM]
Members
679 posts
25,060 battles

The Bottom line is its a common practice on  animal farm. Had to build 5 more barns to keep up with all the cross out and changes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,935
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,702 posts
23,801 battles
3 hours ago, Sniper0921 said:

A secondary large cruiser seems much more fun to play than the current one.

I don't think the older version Agir was op. It was an cruiser after all. The current Agir is really boring to play.

It's called the Siegfried. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,823
[1984]
Members
4,482 posts
21,506 battles
7 hours ago, Skpstr said:

Lol first thing I thought of, where you could see a person with something, and then see them without it.

As far as "firm plastic", if they're done right, (ie. not adult film actress style) unless they were done in the 90s, you can really only tell the difference in a pool or hot tub.

While laying down used to always be obvious as well, is that no longer the case? Anyway it was definitely a funny choice for comparison 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,816
[WOLFG]
Members
33,672 posts
10,473 battles
4 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

While laying down used to always be obvious as well, is that no longer the case?

Depends again on the quality of the work, but also the size. I had a friend who was literally Twiggy, and she spent a chunk of inheritance money on a good doc in the States, to get a B cup.

I can't speak to the look of them laying down completely exposed, but in a next-to-nothing bikini top, they looked perfectly natural. And because of the size, you really had to look for the float in a hot tub.

She showed them to a few of us at a party right after she got back from the surgery. They certainly didn't look natural before they settled, it looked like they'd sewn in a couple of half grapefruits lol.

4 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

Anyway it was definitely a funny choice for comparison 

Lol I've noticed that when I say things off the top of my head, things tend to be inappropriate.....:Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
404 posts
22 hours ago, Midnitewolf said:

Yeah I have always felt win rate was a meaningless stat especially that at the end of the day many of these win rates are in what I would call margin of error.  I always point to the simple fact that if you flip a coin 10,000 time and repeat flipping it 10,000 times over and over, and calculate the results, the percentage of heads results would probably result in somewhere between 40% and 60% at any given time.  To me seeing one ship at 49% win rate and one at 51% is meaningless at least as to which is better. 

I think you understand exactly why they should not be balanced on such a scale then..

 

22 hours ago, Midnitewolf said:

If anything AA is too powerful to be honest.  I am not a primary CV player but recently started playing them and having at bit of fun with them but the one thing that stands out to me is how fast AA melts planes.  As long as players actually use teamwork and mutually support one another rather than gallivanting off to the other side of the map by their lonesome,  just a few ships operating near each other make the area a "No Fly Zone" really quick.   Also if the CV is uptiered, especially at higher levels, even a single high tiered ship can end up being a solo "No Fly Zone"  or at least punishing enough that you find yourself struggling to do much damage at all in a CV.  Edit:  Keep in mind that at least with Tier 6 CVs,  getting a full three runs in with planes tends to about the same damage as a single citadel hit and for the CV player, setting those runs up will likely take at least 2 minutes and that only in a situation where his planes don't go poof on the first run.

In all honesty, I think the perception of CVs being too powerful has to do with the fact that the meta hasn't changed enough since the re-work and that the people complaining the most about CVs just haven't adapted yet.   I just recently came back to the game as I mentioned and I didn't really notice it until I started playing CVs but teams are playing in much tighter and closer knit than they used to and less and less players are moving solo.   I am absolutely sure this is in response to CVs, in fact I know it is because I find myself looking for the nearest cluster of teammates whenever there is a CV in game.   If this meta continues to develop, with teams, moving as teams offering mutual AA support like "Real" fleets, CVs will find themselves struggling badly due to how overpowering AA is.  

As far as the new skill trees, I don't see any inherent weakness in the AA, in fact it looks like if you spec AA, you will be getting quite the significant buff to your AA.  The thing is that buffing your AA appears to come at a significant expense in terms of other skills which might make spec'ing AA a hard pill to swallow for most players.  You will just have to give up so many hugely useful,  full time benefits, to buff the situational benefits of AA.  On the other hand, if a player finds CVs to be a horrid bane of his existence, he can spec full AA and won't have to worry about CVs at all....he just won't quite be as good at engaging surface combatants.   I am sure that won't make some people happy but it looks like there will be a way to counter CVs if someone absolutely feels they need to.

Go back to your coin flip analogy..  There are certain ships which have strong AA.  A large portion of ships in the game have AA that is practically useless.  The problem is that nothing is balanced.  Yes, I understand if a CV is uptiered it is rough, but that also goes for the reverse.  I have been an advocate for a Single tier spread limitation for quite a while, if not same tier matches. The excuse that it cant be done went out the window when they started filling randoms with bots.  Not all CV's are able to deal with it, while some are broken and can just power through. That is a problem.

 

Now, for CV's having to combat ships grouped together.  YES, The AA from those groups should force a CV to hold his planes back and not attack.  The CV should have to save his planes, and he should be motivating his team to move forward and hit ships with HE to knock out AA defenses so his planes can move in and attack instead of the entire team trying to hide in the back and snipe...  That is one of the biggest problems in the game right now.  We should not be making CV's more powerful as they already have too much advantage given to their own ship.  If this is going to be a team based game (Randoms and Ranked) as opposed to more of an individual style (Scenarios) then the CV should have to rely on his team to help them succeed, just like cruisers need DD's to spot for them, battleships need Cruisers to screen, and Destroyers need Battleships to keep light cruisers from steamrolling them.   

 

The changes to AA I was referencing is the spool up mechanic WG is working on, and the idea to make ships start firing AA before planes even come into range, and making sure that none of them will ever hit.  That is a bad mechanic, and will overbuff CV's.  The problem is that WG is not properly balancing the ships in the game.  They have been nerfing AA significantly for at least two years.  The problem is that when they do, there is an uproar because CV's become OP, so WG introduces a ship specifically to counteract that.  Said ship sees major use, CV's start crying about OP AA, More Nerfs incoming, and then the weakest AA ships have zero chance against CV's because they are not being buffed at the same rate to catch up to the changes.   (Halland and Thunderer are two such AA heavy ships if you want Examples).  Is WG going to heavily nerf AP bomber damage before instituting the skill tree rework since they have damage boosting perks specifically for AP bombs there to prevent CV AP bombers from being too OP? Do you think CV players starting up a new line  or having to pay to re-spec a captain will think of that as being unfair by making them have to take that skill if they want their bombers to be relevant?  

 

This has been the biggest inability of WG to address, and they dont particularly like being reminded about it because it would take a lot of work to FIX IT.  The skill tree changes wont fix the issue either, and if what you say about spec'ing AA makes it into the final version to make a single ship untouchable by CV's do you really think it will stay that way for long?  Nope... More changes on the way.  Why? Because there are players who would spec something like that just to instawipe every single plane off the map from the start because of how WG has handled it, then deal with only surface ship.  If those skills will be as powerful as you claim, would you stay silent as a budding CV player or stop playing CV because you couldnt do anything with those setups present?  Wargaming Wants CV's in the game even though they have been the most limited class of play since they introduced them.. They favor that class more than any other because they are trying to make it work.  In my own opinion they have gone about it the wrong way, and I know a good many players who have left because of it.  I wish that was not the case, and I hate seeing all the class bashing that has resulted from it.

 

My own money is on the bet that the Skill rework will not fix the issue. There will be more issues, more complaints, more nerfs and changes after that just like we have been dealing with for years because the game is not being balanced properly.

Edited by Capt_Conundrum
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×