Jump to content
Forum Shutdown 28/7/2023 Read more... ×

mtm78

Alpha Tester
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content Сount

    19,378

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6105

Everything posted by mtm78

  1. mtm78

    Gun Marks

    mtm78 replied to Carnivore81's question in Q&A Section

    This has been asked before it's certainly in the big Q&A thread on multiple occasions. So far the answer was that it wasn't priority but it might get added at some time. The difficulty would be chosing decals to display it. If it's to small, due to the scale of ships, you can't see it. Too big and it's immersion breaking. Then people suggested that marks are useless ( me.. ) as they are generic, I can see win rate or rating why do I need marks. Now if the marks actually represented something usefull, like them indicating if a ship is running defensive AAA or hydro... and if the captain is trained with AFT or not.. and if the player actually shot down a high average number of the strike planes in games he been in... now that would be excellent information to have. Or a DD which is 'marked' as an excellent 'torpedo spotter' and 'cap contester', I know what I should do to support him. Marks should indicate success in a specific part of the gameplay to have the most 'usefulness'.
  2. mtm78
    Tbf at this time they should just totally remove the 20km torpedoes and make the 12km the stock one's ( wait, didn't they add 12km to Yugumo.. are the 20km's still the stock on Shima then? ).
  3. mtm78

    Carrier state: Calling out devs

    mtm78 replied to Ishiro32's topic in General Discussion

    Average is average is average... Also, I concur with the guy saying you got your head mostly screwed in right, but when CV's are the topic you just stop debating and start arguing. Then again, the same can be said the other way around as this whole debate seems to create quite strong emotional reactions within people. Talking about embarrassing enlightenments, if you can detach from your 'cv arguing' mode I would like your opinion on my Possible torpedo counter thread discussing the possible addition of deep draught torpedoes :)
  4. mtm78
    You mean 60% BB population at tier 8 is healthy? Though let me hastily add: I think this change could be USED to counter this, it's not the direct inherit counter. If it were, we would have DD's ruling the lower tiers. This has to be balanced so it fits the game on all tiers.
  5. mtm78

    Alternative IJN DD line tier X?

    mtm78 replied to Aotearas's question in Q&A Section

    edit: Where is this state defined? That seems to imply a question can span multiple patches?
  6. mtm78

    Question about Pan-Asia ship names

    mtm78 replied to MaxTankShooter's question in Q&A Section

    You can always use an external tool which lets you rename ships and captains. -> ship name selector
  7. mtm78

    Ships of 'minor' nations

    mtm78 replied to vuurkillertje's question in Q&A Section

    How big is their player base? Are there more of them playing and paying the bills, since that is why we have Blys, active community size. I seriously doubt there are as many people playing from Korea as compared with The Netherlands ( I might be 100% wrong though.. man I keep forgetting what a small country we are ). Actually considering that, you're probably going to say their player base is bigger :( I just want a real Dutch ship, and not a mention of a Dutch ship being disguised as Pan Asian when it's just a RN DD which never served at the RN but did in the KM ( Koninklijke Marine, NOT Kriegsmarine ) :)
  8. mtm78
    When are you going to argue that BB's should have their historical 3% accuracy? When are you going to argue that BB's should all do THIS after being hit by THREE torpedoes -> ?
  9. mtm78
    It will influence DD balance as well, gunboats sitting in smoke are maybe safer because the enemy dd's will focus on torping the enemy capital ships first? Or not.. I would affect a lot, but I can't see it be a bad thing in any way really not if tweaked and implemented right :) Removing some dual option torpedo possibilities might suck, but when each type is good at what it should do that really shouldn't matter ( how many people use dual purpose torps on a frequent basis? ).
  10. mtm78

    Problems with Matchmaking

    mtm78 replied to DFens_666's topic in General Discussion

    I concur, that is a correct assessment of the situation at hand. MM should indeed do more to balance roles instead of classes, but that is better suited for a separate discussion from the OP in this thread I think.
  11. mtm78
    Well that would be the stock Amagi hull which isn't even in the game anymore afaik right, and the others hulls would have surely added draft ( like with the Kongo refits ). But that would spoil the fat American joke so I won't mention it.
  12. mtm78
    Baltimore had a draft of 8.18m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore-class_cruiser Amagi had a draft of 9.5m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagi-class_battlecruiser I guess this does point to a 'potential realism' issue I tried changing their opinions more than you would probably ever know, it didn't work. This is possibly the only option to restore gameplay balance wise to something close to how it was and how you also would like it to be. Why not try to use it, give input to WG indicating what you think should happen with this mechanic to change current meta instead of telling them to roll back a lot of changes which they aren't going to do? Honestly, if I had any hope that what you want could happen I wouldn't be making this post right now. Edit: adding to that, I really think adding two possible torpedo settings isn't a 'gimmick' either, not when destroyer players also argue about battleships needing to load the right kind of ammunition ( as long as it's implemented server wide after testing, and not restricted to one branch ). That might imply though that BB AP should do no damage at all to DD's
  13. mtm78
    Da könntest du recht haben
  14. mtm78
    You trade some speed as to not lose some range, or well that is what comes to my mind gameplay wise even if it is not entirely realistic which I don't know
  15. mtm78
    Yeah right, the game needs more dd counters it doesn't, and it wouldn't any more then. You just argued for restoring ijn torpedoes, would you then also put in french radar bb??
  16. mtm78
    Again, not my stance so stop convincing me, it is wg who made that statement not me.
  17. mtm78
    It's the opposite really, but could you please explain WHY you think it's counter balance? I am assuming you mean that it is bad for balance if one torpedo type is to effective? Like, the anti BB torpedo shouldn't be to strong? Those are not arguments for it being counter balanced, those are arguments on which to balance the effectiveness of the specific torpedo type. So you think IJN torpedoes are fine as long as you're shooting Yamato's and not Curry's? It's not just hydro. And it can't be fixed unilaterally by buffing IJN torpedo concealment as that will cause them to be to effective against cruisers and other destroyers which is why WG hasn't done it yet. This way WG can balance two types of torpedoes against different targets without affecting the other, it's a very sensible idea if you ask me. Should be just adjusting a setting on the torpedoes, every country is capable of this. This isn't magnetic torpedoes or acoustic torpedoes or any 'specific' type, just a running depth setting. It should influence speed though afaik as deeper running means more water pressure above it and thus more friction ( afaik ).
  18. mtm78
    The RN single launch 'gimmick' isn't intended to counter one class specifically, I wouldn't be 100% sure WG wouldn't implement this dual torpedo type game wide if the idea proves successful :)
  19. mtm78
    Ow yeah it's surely not as easy to put it in effectively. Let's see what the first iteration looks like, I know I can't wait as I like the rough idea a lot.
  20. mtm78

    Problems with Matchmaking

    mtm78 replied to DFens_666's topic in General Discussion

    Not by a long shot.
  21. mtm78
    There has been NO rolling back of radar on British BB's, things which are gathered from leaks should not be part of this discussion. Nothing like what you're proposing has ever happened on the scale of which you're talking. Anyway I think your point is mute as they won't roll it back, and they will add or at least test a new torpedo type.
  22. mtm78
    :smile_ smile: without the space gives ;)
  23. mtm78

    Carrier state: Calling out devs

    mtm78 replied to Ishiro32's topic in General Discussion

    I hope you don't mean Avenger, everyone tries to see his point but when asked for clarifications all he comes up with tends to be -> "CV UP CV META BACK WHEN!!!!!!!one11one!!!!!"
  24. mtm78

    Problems with Matchmaking

    mtm78 replied to DFens_666's topic in General Discussion

    Now imagine if you're a player on the enemy team, do you think they should just 'give up'? Do you know that we had +-3 before? It was glorious! Really, fighting Yamato's in Nagato... a Nagato with an.. well you get the point. Yes MM can create odd matches, but it's random. Being random means that as long as you play enough games, everyone has a comparable experience ( that is the whole intent of the random system ). Law of large numbers applies.
  25. mtm78
    crap, wrong example It's true that it started with German BB's. But that is where it started, German BB's. Even if they had no hydro it most likely would have no effect on average joe's willingness to spam battle button while looking at a battleship in their port. I don't think it's the hydro which lured them there, it's likely it helped and surely it didn't hurt as it just improved on battleships already inherent trait -> survivability. Yes, it WAS better before. But you're saying I'm 'wrong' if I think that an addition like this could be the fix we need, that it is unrealistic to think WG can balance this because they failed to build the foundation right before. But you also think it's realistic to say to WG to just remove a lot of what they added so far and start over. And that's just wrong. Even if it's true, which it is. Because WG will not admit it made such a big error and it will never roll back so many incremental changes. It just will not happen, ever. So again, let's focus on 'the next best thing'. I think this could very well be it.
×