Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About Gnomus

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Gnomus

    Fantasy vs reality Submarine Edition.

    No need to go for bad dreams, as in this case WG can pick something actually build and used. Nicely 1950's technology, so "fits for WoWS" perfectly. May I present to you: Juliett class submarine, aka Project 651 Then it's up to WG to decide if they use: 1) SS-N-3a Shaddock / P-6 (450 km range, speed 0,9 mach, 1000 kg warhead) 2) SS-N-3c Shaddock / P-5 Pyatyorka (750 km range, speed 0,9 mach, 200-350 kt nuclear warhead) 3) SS-N-12 Sandbox / P-500 Bazalt (550 km range, speed 2,5 mach, 1000 kg warhead) (never mind this is 70's design) There's some much potential with submarines and Russian tech...
  2. And this here is the problem... Pommern is battleship with good secondaries, short range torpedoes and hydro. It's main thing is getting close and personal. If you want long range shooter then there are better options available. Dutch airstrike is just another nail in the coffin of committing to battle. Main way of avoiding it is "stay at max range and snipe". This is horrible design when meta is already too much about shooting from range and not getting close to enemy. And soon we will have subs coming... Another nice design where "just sail away and they can't catch you" is offered as solution. Airstrikes might not be OP (we will see when data comes in), but it is pushing game to totally wrong direction.
  3. Gnomus

    bizzy - almost nothing but overpenns (!?)

    This is because WG is unable to make system where overpenning citadel would be something else than overpen. Logic must be that shells making holes in steam engines, boilers, powder and shell storage are mostly harmless. Making citadel overpen worth regular penetration would already fix most of the problem. Currently there are situations where cruisers are safer by fully exposing their side to BB (only overpens) than trying to angle (penetrating hits and citadels).
  4. Arkansas Beta and Iwaki Alpha are reward ships for beta and alpha testers. They should not be available. If WG want's to make them available they should be Arkansas and Iwaki "Lima" (or what ever extra appendix). Alpha and Beta should stay restricted. Game play wise I don't see big point in acquiring them. Arkansas is (stock) Wyoming without AA, but with full upgrade list. Iwaki is tricky Kuma (smoke and long range torpedoes), but game is so full of gimmick ships that Iwaki is no longer special in performance.
  5. Gnomus

    ARP Yamato breaks the premium shop!

    Don't worry. Won't take long (right after the subs would be my guess) until WG will include hydrofoil torpedo boats like VS-10, Turya (Project 206M) or Type 025. Then players can speed around the map faster than turrets can follow and blast slower ships with torps from point blank range. And why stop there, when they could include ships like Matka- (Project 206MR Vikhr) and Pegasus-class, so blasting can be done from total safety...
  6. Gnomus

    0.9.10 - Clan Missions

    Are these all working properly? Most mission became automatically completed, but not all. At least there is problem with these: - Change the Clan's recruitment requirements. I changed required language, but still not completed. - Change Clan description. I changed description, but still not completed. - Appoint a Recruiter. We already had 3. I appointed one more, but still not completed. Clan Battle missions I couldn't confirm yet. As many other mission have been finished retroactively, it might be that same for them. In that case they also should be finished, but are not.
  7. Gnomus

    Submarine Testing

    Changes seem to mitigate some of the worst problems with subs, but they do not remove those problems. As you say, not every speed setup is really historical. Not all ships or their gimmicks are historical. If you already have stretched suspension of disbelief a great deal doesn't mean "everything goes". Subs and their wire-guided torpedoes are simply too far from any historical reality. In addition subs will break meta totally. Of course you can say that game need to progress and not be stale, but changing the basics of the game can have drastic effect on players happiness. After spending thousand+ of hours on the game I'd rather play the game I have invested lot of time and money, not some "subs are great idea" different game. Considering how badly CV's have been balanced. Those who know the rules and procedures can do a lot and there is little target can do to protect itself. Same time players unfamiliar with mechanism get wiped from the sky. By looking at sub rules this is going to be similar mess, or even worse. It will also make similar problems where class is same time underpowered and overpowered depending on user and opponent can either disregard it or can't do anything else than die unexpectedly and fast. Then you can check how many different rules and gimmicks are needed to bring subs to (not even) acceptable level? Too many. Check how well most players understand AA or ricochet rules and think how well they are going to understand sub _and anti-sub_ rules? It's not enough for few dedicated sub player to understood how they work, all "targets" should also understand mechanism or they will feel cheated and frustrated when they eat massive citadel hit torpedoes out of nowhere. When considering if/how you include subs think hard, and try not to break the main game. Subs should be balanced and fun to fight with or against (and they should be closer to historical realism). At the moment subs are breaking everything. They are out of balance (like CV OP and UP same time), are breaking meta and balance between every other class, need tons of new special rules and are totally unhistorical on their properties and working. Please do not force subs to the main game (unless you can actually fix all the problems, which I do not believe considering CV's rework). Perhaps who ever said "that sentence" was right? Perhaps at the time developers understood how badly subs would fit in the game and how they would affect it and considered well being of the game. Recently WG have gone towards "give us your money, we do not care about quality of game" direction, and in that direction subs might seem good decision, but the direction is wrong.
  8. It might not make it any more "team game" than randoms, but it would remove toxic "I farm damage sacrificing team and victory" playstyle. I wrote: "Of course whole "get star / lose star" system should be changed to get X amount of stars. X (and exp thresholds) should be decided to give players of different skill levels about same speed of advancement as now." so it would not affect (much) how much time and dedication is needed. In current system if you get unlucky (with bad team, AFK players, random citadel hits etc.) you can easily lose 5+ starts in a row. In good situation you need to play 5+ games to get back where you were. In bad situation it can take 20+ battles (or never). This is why losing and seeing "no star removed" going to player who was reason for defeat is so bad. This is why players are stressed up and salty. In my proposal you would not get pushed backwards. Just stay in place. You would need more stars (to keep progress speed same), but it would be much less frustrating.
  9. I already suggested a year or two ago that stars should be earned by exp. Some threshold, like 700 exp (so afkers, suiciders etc. won't get anything), and then add a star for every 300 exp more: 700 = 1 star, 1000 = 2 stars, 1300 = 3 stars etc. Good player on losing side might still catch a star or few while winning team players get generally more. Playing good would be rewarded while still giving much more for winners. Of course whole "get star / lose star" system should be changed to get X amount of stars. X (and exp thresholds) should be decided to give players of different skill levels about same speed of advancement as now. Simple and much less frustrating. Even having a AFKer on your team would not be such a bad punishment as you would not be pushed back, just earn less than on battle where you can win.
  10. Dear WG, could we finally have possibility to change only some skill, not full reset? For example if I like to change 2 point skill on 19 point (21 on future) to another skill, could I just pay for 2 point change, and not full price 19/21 point reset? This would be very good change, as clicking all the others skill back takes some time (and costs more). I have bad feeling about this, because: The cost of commander retraining changes: Since redistribution of commander skills will be required much less often, the cost of retraining in doubloons will increase from 500 to 750 doubloons. It is no longer possible to undergo retraining using credits. Please allow changing of individual skills instead of full resets. Another plea for changes: If and when the changes come to the live server, everyone will have an opportunity to reset their commanders' skills for free. Details will be announced at a later date. Does this mean again strict 3 day window, and only if manually activated on home page? Could we have few weeks time to try how skills actually work individually and together with other builds and then make a informed choice on our captains? Please do not make things unnecessary difficult just to milk a little more.
  11. Gnomus

    Ranked matches is unbalanced

    Not all ships have equal opportunity, not even in random battles. Why, and how, they should have equal opportunity in short and fun extra game mode? Someone playing weakish ship, better yet not fully upgraded and with low skill captain, will be hard pressed against player using opish fully upgraded ship with good captain. Not to mention some OP premium with 19 point captain. It's not fair. WG doesn't want it to be fair (to make people use money to progress faster and buy ships). It's fair in being unfair. This time you got the short stick. In the end it is not even that some ships are better than others. It is what ships best fits your play style and skill level. Even if WG would have given everyone "rental Pommern" it would still be unfair to some players because they could not handle the big brawler and would have performed better in some other ship (that WG didn't give as rental).
  12. Gnomus

    Ranked matches is unbalanced

    3 vs 3 in mini map is different than 12 vs 12 random. Some ships are better than others in this ranked and some are better in randoms. Not a single (T9) ships was excluded, they were just better or worse. There is no way to do 3 vs 3 minimap battle with same balance as 12 vs 12 random. Whole thing is too different. This time team size and map size helped close quarters ships. Pommeria happened to be one, and was available for coal and cash. I'm pretty sure it was not coincidence. If maps and rules would have been different we would have someone complaining why their (bought) Pommeria is bad and useless while someone with Izumo can dominate battles with super accurate and super penetrating guns from long range. Would you then be here complaining that it's unfair? Next time we might have large open maps where camo, kiting ability and HE shells will dominate. And who knows what tier ships will be allowed (and what nice "suitable ships" WG has placed in the store). There is no reason, and no way, to keep 12 vs 12 random balance in special modes. With ranked you: 1. Pick "meta ship" if you have one. 2. Pick something else you fancy. Ship that you are grinding. Ship that you need to train commander. Pick for whatever reason. 3. Pick "I only have this" ship, and be done with it. 4. Pick up your credit card and buy suitable ship (WG wan't you to do this, I would advice not to). 5. Not play because you do not have ships required or don't like what WG did. It's (almost) pointless to complain that you had to play with difficult ship. Some players didn't get to play at all if they didn't have T9 (and were unwilling to buy one). Every special mode will make some ships perform better than in randoms and some will perform worse. Hope next time rules match better to your situation.
  13. Please no. This is recipe for frustration. If missions are only for wins it will not make bad players "play for the win" because they don't have enough skill to know what they should do for a win. They will still make wrong calls and end up losing. Same time good players will just get more annoyed on losing because of bad team, while their missions won't progress no matter how well they play if they don't win. When few years back I got my Tirpitz late at night I decided to play a battle or two, just to get daily double to progress captain training . I got that.... ...13 battles later. There were two draws (you know how "easy" those are to get), few battles that were already won and it would have been enough not to do anything for 20 seconds, but team actively failed them etc. It was just impossible to win. Then I compared my damage and kills per battle to my Amagi and North Cal stats, and I had done around 40-50% more with Tirpitz. Still no wins. When winning or losing depends so much on random team it is horrible idea to restrict missions on winning.
  14. Gnomus

    0.9.4 - Submarine battle

    Perhaps it is because "Pro's" want to have mechanism that doesn't rely on utter stupidity of the enemy to work? Lets just compare this to Tic Tac Toe (or Noughts and Crosses if that name is more familiar to you) on 3x3 field. - It is fun when both players have little idea what they are doing. (Same as yours "I can play just fine chasing subs in my BB and ramming them even") - When starter knows what he is doing he can only win or get draw. He can never lose, no matter what other player is doing. - When second player knows what he is doing he can never lose, only force a draw (if starter knows what he is doing). - Once both players know what they are doing Tic Tac Toe becomes totally useless and tiresome game. Actually it is not even a game at that point. Just a list of preordered moves for a draw. Same is true with subs and BB's. When played (equally) well BB can never win. In good situation he might be able to survive long enough, but he can only avoid loss. This is not a game. It is not fun. As long as you are down there where nobody knows what they are doing (or you only rarely meet players knowing what they do) there is some fun. After certain level it ceases to be fun and end result is decided in advance. "Pro's" don't want this because they see how bad the mechanism is.