Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About Gnomus

  1. Try your luck Supercontainers

    If WG wanted they could balance randomness. Lets say base change for super container is 1%, then increase it by 0.1% or 0.05% or what ever every time player gets normal container. When super container emerges drop the bonus and start from base change again. This would make is so that everyone will get occasional super container after enough bad luck. Of course this all is "If WG wanted".... They seems to be fond of randomness on lot of things, like special missions to get ships. :(
  2. "Mighty massachusetts"

    Wouldn't work, as you can have only one individual ship in port. To do that you need something like ARP Kongoes, which are identical in performance, but game handles them as separate ships. The reason WG uses "You can only buy one" is failures on WoT side. There they did some nice special offer bundles that could be used to buy "gold" at much cheaper price than buying gold directly. This was possible because compensation for _bought_ duplicate tank/ships is given in gold/duploons (if you receive tank/ship as a reward it is compensated in credits). Of course some people used that loop hole to stack up gold in massive amounts. By limiting special offer to "only once" people can't abuse duploon compensation to get cheap duploons, or they can do it only once if they already had said ship in port.
  3. New American Campaign

    I do. This is not about not getting missions done. This is about badly designed tasks. If task is difficult, but doesn't restrict (too much) ships you can use. You can leave it active and get it done while playing like you would play anyway. This is not a problem. If task is difficult, but in form "do in a single battle", then you can try it as much as you want, and then pick some other task when you don't feel like trying it anymore. And then you can repick that same task when there is nothing else to do or you want to actively try it again. This is not a problem. Having combination of a difficult task, that is highly restrictive on ships (restricted tiers AND restricted nation AND restricted class) and you need to do it several times is just bad task design. You either need to keep grinding for a long time using those restricted ships only, or you play all nations and all classes and then it takes ages to get done as only small portion battles are suitable for the task. Or you can just cancel task and lose all progress you have managed to get. This is just bad design. Either such tasks should be removed or changed. Alternatively WG could make an option to keep progress saved if/when you pick another task. So if you had achieved 2/6 and pick another task your original task wont progress, but when you repick it you continue from 2/6 and not from 0/6.
  4. New American Campaign

    Please WG, reconsider mission objectives and restrictions. Do not combine difficult "gates" to difficult objectives. Prime example: Mission 3 Task 9: - Tier IX-X, so little more restricted than normal. - Battleship or cruiser, ok half the classes, but still restricts what you can play. - US only. This is pretty hard restriction. -> When you combine these all there is only few ships you can use. If mission objective was something not too hard this would not be so bad, but objective here is awful. Objective: High caliber or Confederate, so things that are not too easy to get and can be impossible to achieve depending on how battle progress. And of course it is not just getting Confederate or High caliber, but getting 6 of them. Combining hard restrictions to difficult objective that you need to do several times should never be done. It means that ether people need to play a lot of battles on very restricted choice of ships (this is not fun and/or make people play stupidly because they only try to get achievements) or they keep on playing normally, but then such mission is blocking their task choices (unless you want to cancel such mission when you have 3-4 / 6 done). Difficult objectives on single battle can at least be canceled while doing some other task meanwhile, so they are not so stressful and not leading to such a task oriented stupid play. Even Mission 3 Task 3 is little bad. Getting 50 citadel hits with T8+ US ships, because it forces to play only US ships for quite a long time or keeping the task unusable while playing something else. Instead making 50 (or even 100) citadel hits with 8+ tiers ships with no nation restriction would be much better. Difference is that current mission restricts what can be played while not having a national restriction would allow to just play and get task done at some point. TLDR: Think about balance between what ships can be used, what are task objectives and how many times it needs to be repeated. When usable ships are highly restricted then task objective should not be too difficult and at least it should not be in format "do 6 times".
  5. Suggestions thread

    It would be nice if all or nothing systems were changed. Mainly: 1. Torpedo damage to saturated area. Instead of 0 damage it should be something like 5-10%. Call it shock damage to still intact parts of hull or what ever, but some damage should go through so ships can't take 5+ torpedoes with no damage. 2. Repair of fire and flood (and is light damage 100% also?) damage should not be 100%, but something like 90-95% so some of damage would stuck even when repaired. Those would take worst out of extreme results rewarding hitting and making some damage, but not making torps and fire too powerful.
  6. "Retarded"

    I just don't understand this mentality of "It's internet, just take it". Internet doesn't mean everyone should just spawn any bile they want. Everyone doesn't need to be offence avoidant (as there will always be someone who gets offended no matter what you say), but there still should be some kind of manners and politeness. Sure free speech gives people right to have bad manners and be unpolite, but then they should carry their responsibilities and do not hide behind "it's internet, it's your problem" excuses. If someone acts in bad manners it is ok to call him out for that. Then it's up for that person to either apologize and change their behavior or just accept that people see them as rude and insensitive. If people want to be rude and offend someone, sure they have right to do that, but they should not pretend that it is ok and normal because this is internet. How people behave when there is no, or only slight, consequences for them on their behavior tells much about their personality. And certainly they should not get themselves offended if someone then judges them on their (bad) manners. Even if someone needs to be rude and offensive (for what ever reason) it should be done in skilled manner and not just throwing out what ever comes in mind offending people that were not meant to be offended or using words he is not actually meaning (like most of "cancer" and "retard" comments are used). This is same as with swear words where many use them without knowing what the words actually mean and not thinking what they are saying. If there is need to be intentionally offensive (or swear) then at least it should be done in proper manner and take responsibility on what is said.
  7. Campaign "The Gold of France"

    Easiness depends lot on ships you have. With Richelieu or T9/10 BB it will go fast or with Aigle. If you need to do 1 and 2 star missions repeatedly it will be much harder and slower. Not all have shinies before they grind them.
  8. For new players this will be problem. For more experienced players this can be avoided with free commander exp. Not an optimal solution, and will kick newer players hard, but not an catastrophe either once you got 19 point captain and free captain exp starts to flow.
  9. Overpens.....effing overpens

    One thing they could do is make "overpens" in citadel do more damage than 10%. Overpen system is ok when thinking about shells going through crew accommodation areas etc. but having shells go through the most important vital components like high pressure steam turbines or ammo storage should do more. Either WG should model heavy machinery inside hull or make it so that "overpen" on citadel area would give regular pen damage. That would fix most stupid things, where you want to offer full broadside because then enemy will just make minimal damage instead of wrecking your ship.
  10. Narai

    Did you miss "You can't keep blaming bots and you team when the mission is as simple as "sail forward, kill red stuff""? You can blame bots and your team, if they do horrible things. That mission is easy if you have team working together aggressively. It is also one of easiest missions to fail because losing a single transporter means five stars is gone. Single player can't keep them all alive if rest of the team decides to wander of or snipe from behind.
  11. Narai

    Blue part: You did have coordination. Not necessary spoken coordination, but group of players playing together. Second you had a plan, push forward and kill everything. That is more than what I have seen in most randoms. Purple part: The moment bots sink first transporter you can't you lose fifth star. If team's "tactic" is not push forward and kill everything then things get much harder. No matter how good you are, but one ship can't keep all the transporters alive if rest of the team hangs back behind transporters. Example from today: "Protect the transporters" and several "wilco" comments to it at the start of the battle. I sail 1-2km in front of first transporter and six other ships are all humped up around last transporter. Get down from your high horse. Look at post #8 and tell it is simply l2p and not fault of "the team". If team stays together and pushes together, then by all means, it can be easy. When team hangs back or go sail to edges of map then single ship just can't carry it. In some of the earlier missions it was enough if some ships just sailed around and shot stuff. In this bot's spawn so close to transporters and and transporters have no brains so mission, or at least five stars, will be easy to fail when "sail forward, kill red stuff" is too difficult for half the team.
  12. Suggestions thread

    What more they would bring than a regular DD? No torps. Less guns. Smaller so less hp. Only advantage would be camo, but even DD's would slaughter them. As far as I know corvettes were slow ships (around 20knots) with minimal surface fighting capability aimed at cheap antisubmarine warfare. Frigates and US DE's were slightly faster and slightly better armed, but still inferior to fleet DD's or fleet "torpedo boats". Corvettes, motor torpedo boats or gunboats would only be greatly gimped DD's. They would not bring much to game unless used as squads or having several respawns. As nice as it would be to have more ships and classes I just don't see economic box for much weaker ships than DD's.
  13. Taking a Bullet for Your Team

    When comparing ability to influence battle and winning it might be that a good player, especially unicums, can be worth 3-4 potatoes. In that sense "do not take the bullet for the team" might be good advice for top players. What I find bad and wrong is that advice can easily roll down the hill. When average and bad players stop playing for the team (as bad a job they do in it) because "good players say never take a bullet for a team" we will end up in very bad place. Battles won't be 12 vs 12 team battles, but just 24 players trying to farm as much as they can while willingly sacrificing team members. Personally I play (too) aggressively for the team with low survival rate, but disproportionally high WR. I rather have that than playing safe and sound and optimizing personal performance. It is just more fun and I would prefer that meta to 1 vs 23 meta. Step from "I better play for myself because it is better for the team" is too close to "just play for yourself and sacrifice team" for my liking. I'd rather have (even bad) co-operative play for the team than seeing game meta go towards personal performance and stat whoring.
  14. Sunray in the Darkness ?

    Did this happen in random battle with 6 strangers? Or perhaps with coordinated team where some players did know how battle works and what should be done? Trying to do it with randoms is totally different experience than doing it in organized team with actual battle plan and knowledge of how battle works. For some reason I just do not believe this "did it easily on first try" and "not even remotely challenging" to hold true to anything else than organised super division or veeeeeeeery exceptional battle where someone tries to lead battle and rest actually following instructions. Go try it with randoms ten times and provide ten consecutive replies how you can "easily" do it with 5 stars and even save all three towers.
  15. Halloween victory glitch

    Same here. I tried to send reply file to customer support, so they could try to check what is wrong, but then I noticed those Halloween replies can be 4-5 MB and support page does only allow reply files up to 3.9MB.