mtm78
-
Content Сount
19,378 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Battles
6105
Everything posted by mtm78
-
I just got a notification message: You're not allowed to give reputation to this user ????? Lel I couldn't screenshot it sadly but what a message.. I kind of agree since it wasn't a sincere like but still....
-
The problem is that capping is ALWAYS beneficial to the victory, while damage is not. Damage done which directly aids the gaining of objectives should be rewarded more than damage done because of farming ( best example: cruiser farming fire damage on BB's, which is only beneficial to the team if the target is focused enough to actually die before it can heal it all back ). Also, that 20k damage is probably done to enemy DD and since damage is based on % of max hp... I bought Harekaze, been playing it with the 100mm Akizuki turrets and I'm having fun. My damage is bad, 40k for a tier 8 DD. But it's almost exclusively gun damage done to enemy DD's, and it helps my team win games more then when I would be doing 80k average to cruisers and battleships.
-
Maybe he was just being Overconfident™
-
Anyone else sick of IJN DD getting Nerfed
mtm78 replied to runawayfast's topic in General Discussion
Well WG so far has been historically accurate in their armament mostly, as with ship speeds ( mostly ) and their tonnage reflecting the HP ( generally ). WG does like the ships to fit the physical models so they can't put Bismarck in with 16inch guns for instance. The same goes with trying to be true to the ship design when assigning it a rudder shift time. Long narrow ship hulls are fast, but turn really bad ( Molotov ).. while some BB's which are fatter ( wider compared with their length ) have slow rudders but can actually turn a lot tighter than a Molotov. There are enough historical/real life references to be found in the game ( well enough for me, guess it's personal right :) ), but there is also a lot which can be fiddled with. Whether or not you like this depends on if you want a simulator or an arcade implementation. The later is what WG is known to make for a long time, and they are quite good at it. -
Lol you blatantly ignore the most laughable part of his post -> .... you heard it here first guys, BB AP doesn't harm DD's at all
-
-
So all those good cv players which get deplaned because the other CV player was actually even better, are actually complete [edited] for not being better. CV's only being able to get deplaned if played by baddies is a myth.
-
Anyone else sick of IJN DD getting Nerfed
mtm78 replied to runawayfast's topic in General Discussion
I still don't see the direct relevance to the thread, historical accuracy ( mimicking the ships they are physically modelled after ) comes second to balance considerations. Maybe I just don't get what you're saying? I don't think there is a direct tie between ability to reload torpedoes at sea and TrB. To many ships which did have spares on board do not have TrB fitted to them. So, TrB is a very much per ship balance factor as opposed to a direct reference to their IRL capabilities. I mean, yes you can find examples to support TrB is implemented to mimic the ability to reload torpedoes at sea, but they are not conclusive so WG is totally free to fiddle with it. It's the same with Akizuki which was built as fleet escort, not getting DAA consumable because 'it didn't need it / it didn't fit the ship's intended role'. -
Discounting DAA consumable, yes they do because of absolute number of guns mounted on them. Sailing with 2 BB's in proximity can already be a nightmare for CV's, add a single cruiser to spread the torpedoes / bombs and unless the enemy CV is able to bait your consumable and wait it out, you should be nearly untouchable ( ok he might land something, but you should be able to survive the CV's attention for a VERY long time ). You're right about not going for USN BB's and expecting no loses, they trade other things to have better AAA and while this pisses CV's off it's not in any way worse then GE BB's with hydro upsetting all the DD players.
-
Battleships should earn 0 XP and credits for CA kills
mtm78 replied to G01ngToxicCommand0's topic in General Discussion
Yeah well I rated it as a non serious topic due to working title and proposal, I like the goal you know I do, but I don't think your proposed idea is viable enough for WG to even consider it. So, I thought you probably made the thread for the discussion / replies and not for the proposal itself, as a lengthy discussion following a proposal as flawed as it was on your OP is a clear sign that while the solution might not be agreed upon, the problem it tries to fix warrants reaction after reaction. So I guess I was complimenting you if that was your goal, and wondering if I'm actually right in thinking why you made the thread -
Anyone else sick of IJN DD getting Nerfed
mtm78 replied to runawayfast's topic in General Discussion
Ow I didn't mean to argue Shima should get the consumable, it shouldn't! I mean, 15 torps is enough, no need to make it 15 + 8s pauze + 15. But WG shouldn't balance on 'real life' as much as on gameplay. There is a reason BB's aren't released with submerged torpedo tubes even if the early BB's in their original builds almost all had them. TrB isn't used on ships which could reload torpedoes, TrB is used on ships as a balancing factor :) -
How about you limit every players ability to get this 'boost' during a game to a few times, say 3 or 4 times you can call out a target which you think is of high tactical importance and if that target receives damage in the 20s after you call it out you get a bonus to the XP/credit income, BUT also the ships which actually deal damage get a higher XP/credit income while targeting a ship which is highlighted as priority target? The system should be set up so it rewards those who work together well, thus promoting team work directly and indirectly as people will put more thought into the whole process.
-
Anyone else sick of IJN DD getting Nerfed
mtm78 replied to runawayfast's topic in General Discussion
And that's 200% irrelevant balance wise. This is a game, not a simulator, if you want it to be a simulator go petition WG to lower BB accuracy to 3% MAX. -
Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"
mtm78 replied to Deamon93's topic in General Discussion
I never knew there was a Blitz version of WoWs... thanks I guess :) -
Where douse this Myth/Fact that the Warships playerbase is dwindling come from?
mtm78 replied to T0byJug's topic in General Discussion
BB loves fighting unorganized enemies since they are built to 1v1 beat others. Cruisers like to gang up on enemies, DD's have utility which value grows with more organized play. Playing a BB properly in ranked is probably a lot harder than it is in randoms. Sadly you're a minority :( -
Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"
mtm78 replied to Deamon93's topic in General Discussion
This. I was thinking what looked 'off' about it as it didn't look photoshopped but also not the actual WoWs UI. -
It's not like it's sekrit info when besides every 3rd party tracker even WG themselves have said it right
-
What is even funnier is P2Win claiming there is nothing wrong with tier 8 BB's causing them to represent > 50% of battles played at their tier. BBaby minds, they are very hard to follow.
-
Nerf BBaby AA. There, you made the game more fun for everyone, except the BBaby's. Two birds with one stone!
-
Better go full autist right, that would be more 'fun'. But yeah the target spamming would be an issue... but it is still something which could warrant some investigation, or as you would say it, to go full autist!
-
We passed 50% for high tier ( VIII ) some time back already Very classy, I <3 people using autism like this. Fyi I'm an Aspie, my son has classical autism. I rather have people 'be a complete autist' then be like you.
-
Anyone else sick of IJN DD getting Nerfed
mtm78 replied to runawayfast's topic in General Discussion
Yup there is also this gap between players and developers seemingly not understanding player issues, or more likely, not communicating properly with their players. -
I find other things much more of a shame but sadly we'll have to wait until tomorrow to have that resolved. Sadly I guess you're not going to explain to us how the iconic NCal isn't played as much on NA as the Bismarck. Sad, I really wanted to hear your wisdom on it. As to your 'intelligent' discussion, I do hope you realize how unoriginal these 'proposals' are as they been outed many times before by many others before. Which doesn't mean it's wrong btw, just that it is not something you actually 'thought up'.
-
-
This shows everything we need to know about your input in balance discussions, that right here. Please explain us though why NCal which is 'iconic' to a MASSIVE percentage of the NA players ( namely, those of the USN which is the largest part, Canada and Central America are not really big at all.... ) isn't played more on NA servers if there is nothing in Bismarck to attract players other than being iconic. And please don't explain it with popcorn.
