Figment

The point was you'd have no trained captain on the Groningen, so it's pointless to bring it over. Particularly for people like me who use it as one of their primary ships for Ranked in T8-9 and T9-10 matches. I'm still VERY annoyed with WG, because they said there WOULD be some sort of compensation for the Friesland captain when the Friesland would move over to the Dutch line.

You do realize that MMORPGs themselves are a newer school incarnation of RPGs. Right? The hint is in the RPG bit. Now, which came first? :) Your point is nada and is just made to double down on a lost cause argument on a fight that never was intended to be a fight or argument but a play to defuse your stupid, flawed, relative but above all senseless fight with a joke. …You do realize you are someone who cannot accept and appreciate a simple joke, because you think you’ve got a fight of words on your hands that you absolutely must win, merely because of your epeen, right? Do understand how that reflects on you. Someone made a joke relativating about both your arguments, you took it not just way too serious, you tried to make a dumb self-defeating argument just so you can double down on something you’re wrong about. That’s because MMO was never of any concern when it comes to a definition of older school gaming. MMOs are per definition a later incarnation of the same type of game, because the communication tech for MMOs didn’t exist. “Old school” refers to a more original ways of doing things. So by definition something that came later is not really “old school” unless you ignore what came before with a definition of convenience, which is a logical fallacy. Which is what you did... :/ If you wanted to go even more old school, you’d have gone to DnD roleplay with actual dice. And then to anything that came before that. What you don’t do is try to make someone who has you by the balls look stupid, cause they’ll squeeze.

Give yourself some more advice - and buy a joke detector. Not one from Aldi.

You know that doesn’t reset an EU captain to a Dutch one?

Since its captain doesn't move over, there's absolute zero reason to exchange it for the Groningen. You'd lose a good captain for it if you trained one and can't move it over. Don't need that captain on the EU DD tree, since they work with torps and without hydro.

Damnit, and here I was expecting reviews about the movie. :/

Damnit, thought you might have heard of PlanetSide. :(

Devil’s advocate: Because you could win or lose without it due to someone making the wrong decision by lack of situational awareness. You might win more if your team gets useful info that they can’t figure out for themselves. You’d be taking wins from opponents and yours alike by reducing the chance of player error in this field. Think of it this way: If you’re someone who already is aware of keeping score count, without a mod, score tracker is not a bonus feature, but a new liability. It will take more wins from you than it will gain you by informing your opponents where you’d keep your allies informed before.

Why when you wern’t even in diapers yet REAL adventurers had to write commands in text without any UI whatsoever and figure out what commands even existed on the fly! If that wasn’t some of the first Massive Merriment Obstruction RPG game designing, I don’t know what is! Also, remember that old picture of you?

Egads, is this a person who may actually see PS and not relate it to PlayStation due to knowing old school SOE games?

It isn’t you whippersnapper. WOW is third or fourth generation adventuring. 🧐 DOS QBasic text adventures. Now there’s old school.

One of the reasons the prices remain high is monopoly. There is no market competition within the game and you cannot import ships from elsewhere. Players who want some ship are forced to get it at WG or not. That is the choice. So where normally sale prices go down as production becomes cheaper and tooling spread over more units and kwantum costs come into effect, WG has no incentives aside from sales numbers to adjust sale prices. If the consumer buys it and you run a profit, they argue run that profit as high as possible. Which means at most they might look for an equivalence cost at units sold for various prices, where if they’d lower the cost they’d get the same profits but would need more sales. By higher costs they are also selling exclusivity, it’s an extra USP for ships if you’re unique. Even if it is only an illusion. Hence costs will remain as high as they can get away with the same profit as they would by selling thousands more at a lower price.

No, for if I’d try them out, I’d (potentially) have even a temporary advantage over some others. I will not do this to others for even one game. I’d rather be disadvantaged and know I beat people by purely my own skill honing and insight. It’s a matter of principle and honour. I’m running a clean ship. No mods, ever. If WG wants to hold mod trials and all, great, just as long as everyone in the match has equivalent UI information. Sadly that’s not the case when you run vanilla, you know you’re in some little ways disadvantaged by people with improved data processing mods and better map and aiming reticules etc. for aim assists. And that is before you even consider those that have game altering mods bordering on hacks detailing where shots will land, alter textures of units to show weakspots while their opponents see camo, etc. The worst thing to me is that you can’t tell what minor performance enhancers people use and that people are all in the same MM. At least people should play with open vizor instead of hiding their mod advantages to others in the match. IMO WG should indicate what mods people use on their profiles at least. Even if private. Not just because you’ll know what competitive edge they use(d), but because many new and old players have no idea what mods exist and that they’re even fighting against such mods. Not exactly fair play. I wouldn’t want to win that way anyway knowing you apparently couldn’t manage on your own skills and rudimentary info or were too lazy to acquire the required intel and process it yourself. :/ I don’t get how others justify it to themselves either, but then again WG openly justifies gambling addiction stimulation modifications for personal gain to the game too, so I guess we’re in good company.

The problem I have with this is that it affects how people behave in game. If they know for sure they can or cannot run out the clock because someone tells them (score tracker), they will act accordingly. If they have to guestimate who wins, they may miscalculate or make a different choice. Minor advantage but an advantage nonetheless. Like how mods that tell how well players perform on average in advance change targeting, focused fire and engagement patterns… You may just want that one, but others may want others. They already integrated some UI features like various circles for all because certain mods influence combat outcomes and behaviour by providing positioning intel (range and detection circles in layers for one) or other suggestive information about opponents, including shell tracers and position extrapolation aim assistd exist. Even easier ship hp tracking provides additional automated situational awareness, thus less process time, thus combat advantages… :/ I’m not happy with their existence, but when they do exist, the field of battle should be leveled again…

AP ricochet angle aim assist? Even if on your compass screen… Do you still cycle with training wheels too? Sounds like an unfair advantage mod compared to vanilla (thus cheat) to me. I’d never use that. :/ I don’t use mods and certainly would not be accepting of any that alter the chances of hitting in the right spot (whether me or my opponent) compared to people who have no access to it. I’m sure it’s “legal”, I’m sure it’s a “minor” mod, but it sure isn’t ethical if it gives an advantage over those who have to figure things out more intuitively.

When they’re going to be added to coop, I’d suggest adding submarines to matches with 12 surface ships as extra ships (up to three subs extra, up to 15 total). Otherwise there will be too much impact on screening abilities. 1 extra DD and a BB less for matches with 2-3 subs would probably be good too.

So, just got this admiral, because reasons. Here are his main skills: Demolition expert: +15% hit radius towards submarines +1.5% fire chance with main guns +1.5% fire chance with secondary guns So doesn't affect air strike bomb fire chances. Applicable to DDs, Cruisers and BBs. Air Defense Training: -10% reload time for Air Strike (useful) +35% AA priority sector damage +1 flak explosion Applicable to Cruisers and BBs. Now here's the thing. My Pan-EU captains should be expected to eventually have submarine, cruiser, battleship and CV lines to train for, right? But, they only have DD skills they can train and select. Dutch captains? Sub skills, DD skills, Cruiser skills, Battleship skills AND CV skills. So, while we knew there'd be a DD line and there is the Friesland Groningen and suspected a submarine line, I'd say this also likely confirms at least a Karel Doorman (as premium?) in the near future (doubt the support carriers will be added). But also... Dutch BB(s)?

Drain the swamp! Sorry, Dutch, it is a natural instinct to do.

Regarding that betting in gaming comment from 2017... It's a different kind of ethics people like this have. They don't see gambling as a pyschological disease, but a form of income with the moral justification of "someone will do it, so why not make a profit for ourselves?". It's the kind of justification drug dealers use. It's when you objectify people and don't care one bit about their personal and social well-being. It should be noted that ethics is a class that isn't taught widely enough in (technical) universities as is (often it's optional), but I very much doubt it's a class that's being taught in Belarus given its government's ethics. I'm not surprised and it's why I've spend minimally on the game's monetization schemes since its launch. I do spend, because some effort is put into the game that's worth paying for, but never on anything remotely gambling like. To think they're considering betting on player matches with in-game currency (and expect real money bets outside) is rather ludicrous. Such managers clearly don't see the game as something they love and want to build and share with the world, while making a well-deserved profit of their hard work, but more like a casino manager or drug lord deliberately intending to exploit addictions "before someone else does".

Minsk is in Russia already? Damn those Russian annexations go fast.

They are all Russian extrapolations and interpretations that deviate significantly from the actual plans from what I learned from some threads on their designs. There were plenty plans for BBs in the 1910s, but since they're so old I presume they'd all be pretty low tier. In the thread I linked there were: Pantsership 1912, original design Pantsership 1912, second altered design Pantsership 1912, later proposed idea Vickers design, Project 694 Vickers design, Project 695 Blohm & Voss design, Project 733A Blohm & Voss design, Project 733B Blohm & Voss design, Project 733C Krupp-Germania design, Project 743 Krupp-Germania design, Project 753 Krupp-Germania design, Project 772 Krupp-Germania design, Project 806 Lots of plans here too: https://imgur.com/gallery/QfrKp4M

Easy check: Look at the wording in the post in their own language.

Having minor prejudices can happen to anyone out of ignorance, laziness, being poorly or wrongly informed, a lack of self-critique, education, awareness and discipline. It may not even be conscious racism. There's degrees to racism. Having prejudices doesn't mean you hate. You could even be positive discriminating by assigning generalised positive traits or awarding extra credit or advantages to certain people you may even just feel sorry for and want to help when there's no need. Assuming even political preferences about someone based on their racial grouping, etc. So having racial prejudices doesn't mean you hate AND express this hatred openly and even if one chooses to express their derogatory views, it doesn't need to be accompanied by derogatory slurs, which are expressions of rage and ill-wishing. The real question is, why are you trying to justify, white wash or white knight for someone with a whataboutism argument? Why are you trying to suggest it isn't that bad and if it is, that everyone else does it too? And even if others would do it as well, how would that make this instance less bad?

There's a lot of reasons for very different people. You can't dumb this down to one main reason, even if a lot of people want their personal pet peeve to be the main reason, for they would solve all issues in the world by designing purely for themselves and satisfying only those like them. I've come across variations of the following a lot: - "Top down RTS is boring" (some people want to feel the wind, so to speak) - "Too much grind" (longest grinds at those tiers) - "Too much of the same thing at higher tiers" (can be said for all ships tbh, but it stacks with other reasons) - "Seal clubbing" (considered dishonerable) combined with forced long seal club grind - "OP" (a lot of people don't want to play something that is even remotely considered OP because of peer pressure or personal anti-bully sentiments - even if their perception is biased and skewed and therefore wrong) - "It's an effective, (therefore) too effective counter against my prefered playstyle, so I will boycott it while railing against it" (most commonly heard in some shape or form) - "It's not supposed to be in a game about surface to surface ships" (the game never was portrayed this way, but hey) - "It's got no place here since it doesn't require direct line of sight and therefore they don't risk themselves" (neither do other ships, those need line of sight on a position you're going to be from a position they were in, it's just even more flexible for CVs) - "Annoyed with how they're played by others" - "Receiving too much negative attention (including people demanding a personal support air force) / harassment / karma downvotes while playing CVs" - "Unbalanced tiering/AA experience" (either too little resistance or too much) - "Frustrating team play" (People expect a lot of you, but are often very unwilling to assist you) - "Frustration with being on the receiving end due to low situational awareness and projecting that in some way on the opponent" (people got torp trapped a lot, which they could avoid resulting in abuse and people not wanting to play the class that frustrates them) - "Lacking strategic and tactical insight while having very high expectations of pwnage" (disappointment: some people are just really bad planners and would get horrid results when playing CVs as a consequence, not at all in line with the OPness they were expecting, thus disappointment, but often rather than with their own skills, blamed the tool) - "No personal interest in playing CV, because it's about managing aircraft more than the ship." - "Too easy" (Some people are good at planning and recognising vulnerable ships of opportunity and would decimate enemies, these people tend to require a challenge to keep them interested) - etc. A lot of these reasons stack, combine or are variations of the above result in personal reasons not to play CVs. Some of these reasons are given as justification when I suspect other reasons (frustration from their own incompetence, but not being able to admit incompetence or open to critique, being the main culprit).

Just tried the Salmon (VIII). My experience so far is, either a minor credit profit or loss, -50K tops. Economics are always bad in coop, so that's not surprising. 1 or 2 kills per match (subs and DDs) and damage to cruisers mostly. BBs are dead before you reach them. Matches are over in 3-5 minutes as usual (barely noticeable increase if any. People probably got better at finding subs.). Bots don't evade, rarely engage you and are very easy to ping, even double ping. Barely get time to reach B if you start at A and dive a lot, but subs are VERY easy to find as you just extrapolate on the bot goals. IF you don't dive too much you can easily move around, though usualy a bit behind the DD. If you dive, you'll start to hang back quickly. Playing against bots its boring as they don't change course and I've even pinged yet to be detected targets because bots are so predictable. I'd expect subs to be a lot more interesting in an active player environment where they can make or break a flank. I don't think anyone can make a proper assessment of playing subs on the basis of coop. Ranked will be a better test, though I'm sure it'll be a frustrating one for many.