Jump to content

th3freakie

Beta Tester
  • Content count

    397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4628
  • Clan

    [WOTN]

About th3freakie

  • Rank
    Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

1 Follower

  1. What is this [edited]?

    I don't get the outrage. I happen to enjoy the spotting gameplay, but precisely because I often play spotter DDs and CAs, I know they are only viable if there are other players dishing out the damage. Keeping the enemy radar cruiser spotted is risky, and if the big guns on my team don't sink him, it was all for nothing.
  2. Rant / CV / AA / in-game exploits / a request

    Yuro's video is about division anchoring, which is a way to manipulate the MM into giving you a lower tier battle. For example, as in the video, using t8 ships while being sure you will not be put in a t10 battle. That is not what the OP is complaining about, which is t10 CVs playing with t10 AA cruisers.
  3. Capping mechanic

    Better idea: "Capital Domination" game mode, where only Battleships and Carriers can cap. Pushes the BBs together and gives the DDs freedom not to run into the radar saturated hotspots. Preferably combined with some shallow water areas that can only be crossed by DDs and CLs.
  4. Premium shells in WOWS

    The Golden Torpedo: Deepwater and does 50k damage, 90 knots and 20km range without spreading out. 12 gold a torp. Sure, seems balans.
  5. fix this turd of a ship ( Des moins )

    I absolutely agree with OP. Lets buff the Des Moines. Also the Gremy and the Arkansas, while we're at it. And the Missouri doesn't make enough money.
  6. Remove Straffing?

    "You can suck less at it if you practice" is not the same as saying a system works or is well designed, you lads understand this, yes?
  7. Remove Straffing?

    It's not either or. CV is broken both because it is APM intensive and the UI is borked from the start. But they've never even tried to fix the UI and they just added more utility to high APM (like strafing). Taking steps to fix either of them would be good.
  8. Remove Straffing?

    Removing manual abilities would go a long way towards fixing CVs. I've been saying it for 2 years.
  9. Is a Pan-European tech tree wanted?

    So long as the t10 is a Portuguese Battleship, sure, why not.
  10. Ranked Battles Season 9 - Discussion Thread

    I've only played 8 battles so far, still on r12, enjoying the tier 8 meta. Maps are sorta OK, although radar combined with really small caps is kinda deadly for DDs. Unfortunately, the core issue remains, and that is that this game mode remains entirely focused on the race to "rank 1", after which players quit. It's still all about going up in ranks (that's where the rewards are) and gaining/keeping stars, which in turn means there is very little point playing this mode if you cannot put in the hundreds of games needed for "ranking out". This means every game you lose costs you 2 more games you need for the objective, and makes everyone so incredibly salty. It also means even bad players / literal bots can "rank out" if they just play enough games. So we have a system that only rewards skill if it is accompanied with the time to burn in 180/300 matches, but can reward people with 45% WR if they just put in 2300 games (like, say, you would with a bot). It's nonsense. It's stressful. It's not worth it for the meager rewards bellow r1. Would much rather prefer if the you revamped the whole rotten system and made changing rank not give you anything (or not much) by itself, but winning games while in better ranks give better rewards. You could use the repeating missions/challenges to give out the rewards. Say, if you were between rank 22 and 20, you would get a container every 10 wins. But if you were between rank 20 and 15 you'd get one every 5 wins. Between rank 15 and 10 you'd get a container every 3 wins and a supercontainer every 10 wins, and so forth until rank 1 gave you, say, a supercontainer every win. You could still, at the end of the season, give a jolly roger or whatever cumulative reward you want, to everyone who played more than X battles and has a 60% or 75% or 80% win rate, or whatever value you want. This way you could do away with the "keep a star in defeat" that annoys people so very much, and you'd keep the best players in the system. This means only the super unicums would probably be able to reach and remain in r1, but everyone else would still feel rewarded for reaching as high a rank as their skill allowed. People who could play 2000 games with get more rewards than those who could only play 50, but even those who could only play 50 would have rewards proportional to their skill.
  11. Campaign "The Gold of France"

    The "1800 ribbons" style missions are way too grindy for a nation that mostly has slow reloading guns. Apart from that, the campaign was alright, and synergized well with the Aigle missions. I only lament that the camos it offered clash with camos being sold. If you developed the "Republic" camos for Gascogne and Richelieu, why not put those as rewards? And if you don't want to do that, because those are to be sold, then why develop the "Maid of Orleans" for the same ships? Why not make those for, say, Lyon and Alsace? To say nothing of things developed for the Dunkerque, which already has an awesome camo. To be quite honest, I was almost tempted to buy the Republic camo for Richelieu, but I already won the Orleans one, and it's not like getting more camos for the same ship has any advantage so... meh.
  12. The World of Warships ModStation!

    The power of whining works again! Bless you.
  13. The World of Warships ModStation!

    Taking a surprisingly long time. Seems like we'll have to install mods some other way if we want to enjoy them over the weekend.
  14. Met Tuccy in ranked. He was in a Kagero. I sank it.
  15. Holiday Lottery - Try your luck!

    *logs in to check who won my prize* "suppenkaschperl" is it? Ok let me see if the forum name matches the account name and if this person already owns t.. wow what the heck are those stats?! Good to know the ship will be handled well.
×