atomskytten

Beta Tester
  • Content count

    1,412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6649

2 Followers

About atomskytten

Profile Information

  1. The reason for all problems with campy playplay, smoke fests or not, comes from Wargaming decision to make games last no more than 20 minutes by using a distance scale of about 1:5 while also compressing artillery flight times by 50% which increased the hit and kill probability for artillery by 10 to 20 times more than IRL in addition to the arcade penetration and damage models used. Such a hostile and lethal enviroment inevitably leads to camping as the risk a ship could have taken in real life can not be taken in WoWS without that ship being sunk or severely damaged and there lie all the problems. The only way to effectively deal with camping and passive playstyle for a switch to an aggressive maneuvre battlestyle is to effectively reduce the ships lethality which will lead to far longer battle durations. It is not possible to have a high probability of hitting and damaging the enemy targets and have overall aggressive playstyle as those are mutual exclusive and players and Wargaming has to realise that; Either we have high probability of hitting and dealing damage and have a passive gameplay or we have low probability of hitting and dealing damage and aggressive gameplay. Now players and Wargaming have to make up their mind what kind of game they want to play: the current passive gameplay with low game duration or aggressive gameplay with far longer game duration.
  2. Much much less risk than parking in the open in the same spot spamming away without smoke. It is still a passive playstyle which depends on being obscured from the enemy's view rather than maneuvering to gain the advantage.
  3. My philosophy when it comes to online gaming: No risk no reward; meaning that hiding in smoke and spamming HE/AP should not be a rewardable behaviour but rather that an aggressive playstyle should be. The smokespamming games are incredible campy and boring and I don't like that and I would rather see people actually maneuvering and engaging in the open. Wargaming has made some pretty stupid game mechanics decision which punishes tactics that would work well IRL which is why smoke spamming became an issue; if Wargaming addressed those bad design mechanics aggressive playstyle with maneuvering and fighting in the open would be viable and good tactics.
  4. Actually and if true I think it will make the game better because it will make camping and spamming shots from smoke less viable thus forcing players to be more mobile.
  5. Looks like the only interesting RN BBs will be the premiums..
  6. Indeed, I forgot to add that it should be Wargaming that should be doing the naming and shaming as they did originally with WoT.
  7. There should not be ' protection of data privacy '. Rule violators need to be publicly named and shamed as that is the only way to show players what happens if you do.
  8. The other alternative would be for Wargaming to issue bans to players that are AFK for more than 1 minute increasing the length of the ban until permanent in serial offenders. If people load late due to bad PCs they should not be playing as that is showing disrespect for all and they should be issued warnings and bans as well. No I am not a tolerant kind of guy and I don't care if that means potato PC players leave.
  9. About 10-20% aren't and on average I experience at least 1 player not loaded or AFK each game but usually there are 2 of those.
  10. And this will not be an issue because there can be used a timer that puts people back in matchmaking after a predetermined time.
  11. I am tired of losing battles because players are either AFK, botting or non loaded and I can't understand why Wargaming does not force all players to press a 'Ready' button before any battle can start to make sure that all players are present. It is the same crap in WoT and while the excuse obviously will be "But but but players don't like to wait and just want to battle immediately.." there is no valid excuse for starting battles when not all players are ready or even loaded. It could be a deliberate decision of course in order to promote frustration among players so that they spend more money on gold for converting XP and credits for. Just fix it Wargaming and yesterday.
  12. Met Dropsig in his 3 ship Shiratsuyu division on Shatter. Could walk from torpedo to torpedo across the entirety of the map without getting the feet wet His team won but only barely and he sunk me
  13. That BBQ though
  14. Why teach players false history? If WG had gone the chinese way, that is to ban real countries they could make up all kind of ridiculus ships instead of this falsifying of history which is almost criminal in nature. There are hardly any difference in playing different ships within the various classes anyway and nothing is gained by using paperships thus WG might as well had gone for historic fidelity rather than perverting it.
  15. It almost sounds like an autistic reasoning just as the ever increasing calibre explanation as to why Gneisenau wasn't made historical does. If you want people to actually believe this game has any root in historical events there are better solutions to tech lines than filling them up with paper ships that were never made let alone laid down. Nothing wrong in having the same class of ship have more than 1 place in the techtree such as Kongo and Nagato class that could easily have had 2 different tier placements each - kongo at tier 4 and 7and Nagato at tier 7 and 8 while pushing the Amagi to tier 9 as examples.