Jump to content

Cosimo_Botejara

Players
  • Content Сount

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    20003
  • Clan

    [LNIXH]

1 Follower

About Cosimo_Botejara

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Cosimo_Botejara

    Cannot log in 'Technical issues'

    Good morning. I was launched off the game yesterday nigth, just when starting a match. No way to relog. This happens sometimes when server maintenance is being done. Today I found I have a penalty (pink ship) for leaving the match. To be in pink mode some matches is not a great issue, but this time was NOT my fault. May be some tech manager of WG will be paid next month with pink monopoly bank notes, instead their "bucks". Greetings.
  2. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    @TimberjacI agree with you. They can rebalance, unbalance, or make another changes to avoid the undesirable results of the mad invention, but what they cannot fix is that now you play a plane in a ship's game. May be WG should extend the invention to WoT, including a vehicle labelled "air controller" and summoning stukas and sturmoviks, typhoons and thunderbolts.
  3. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    I've noticed another minor bug ... When any ship launch his spotting aircraft, all enemy team sees it, no matter they were more than 20 Km away. And can see the ship class and the name of the player. Meanwhile, you can be detected by a plane you are not seeing. As relevan information, there are much more people looking for planes from a ship than looking for ship in a plane, so usually ships see planes before planes can see ships.
  4. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    Tsk Tsk Tsk. Were are your manners? Not a mature thinking this one. Some toxic crybaby is still playing then. Perhaps you were just deaf.
  5. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    I guess players take their decissions fast and easy way. In my last matches, they were almost no DDs cause CVs, and not a single CV (probably cause CVs too). Let's see if CVs extinction would be like the dinosaurs one. Do you need more feedback, WG?
  6. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    Sure? Are we talking about the same rework? Do you really think 0.8 carriers figth in a way more reallistic than former ones? Ok, it's your opinion and I DO respect it. But for sure this opinion clarifies a lot of things.
  7. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    Limited range for planes having almost no control to sail the carrier, is for sure a great deal. But in a game wich Yamato or Musashi can shell an enemy from side to side of the map with guns, wich kind of limit would be impossed to the range of airplanes? It's an amazing idea but sorry I cannot imagine how to implement it.
  8. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    Why in the hell should not bother? To play a ship now DO means that all other ships are not in the same game? And the former interface was by far much more reallistic than this one. You were NOT manning planes, but ORDERING them. That is just what is done in a CV, isn't it? By the way I will explain you that I have developed all class over tier VIII ... except CVs. That means I played them but reluctantly. I'm not a unicum so the relation satisfaction/effort was low. With the rework, the relation satisfaction/effort is zero. Of course it's my own feedback.
  9. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    Dear 1MajorKoenig, I think InfinityIncarnate explained it so clearly; He does NOT like to man a plane, he's in the game to man a SHIP. And his rage is cause no way to balance this, or to fix this, or to think about that as a bug. By the way I say to you that I am JUST in the same case he is.
  10. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    WG think tank: -"We had a powerfull tool, the CVs, that are demanding and a bit boring but in the hands of very good players unbalance the matches. What could be done? - Instead of be manned as the capital and powerfull ship they were, man the CVs like planes, and deliver small amount of damage but in a continuous way. Rework AA because with former mechanics no single plane would fly enough to attack, and try. - Done. But testers detected the patch is not working as intented. - No problem. Launch the rework and solve that problems on route." Real CVs are demanding, and well served, unbalance the sea power. If WG did not want such a tool in their game, they better should have removed CVs from play, better than convert them in aliens wich use is completly unreal.
  11. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    I will try to point to solutions this time. And to do that I will try to regroup the problems detected "solution oriented". 1. Problems with the operative (OP scouting, AA sometimes awesome sometimes useless and a lot RNG, damage done and received, non-historical and unreal planes, ...). These kind of problems would be solved by rebalance and improvements over the new rework. 2. Problems with the intercourse (players doing phalanx to combine AA, DDs role changed or useless, damage done with planes changed to a slow and boring demolition instead of the previous all-in crushing blows, ...). Some of this problems are intented results of the rework, and WG will not consider them problems but solutions, and the others would be corrected by player's attitude in the future ... or may be not. 3. Problems with the concept (to man a plane not a ship, repetitive and boring procedure, role of the CVs changed and unreal, ...). These kind of problems cannot be solved with the rework done, cause are inherents to the concept. Obviously WG will like to work with the first ones, and let the second ones to be assumed-solved by the players themselves. And will pray at the business gods that the thirds ones don't ruin the game entirely.
  12. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    Machinegun and cannon, it's true. And high altitude bombers, it's true too. And a guided bomb (a missile) sunk Roma, true again. But let me explain you: 1. No ship greater than a patrol boat was sunk by strafing in any moment of the WWII. If you know a case, please show it to me. 2. All ships sunk by high level bombers (and were really few) were ANCHORED. If you know some exception, please tell me. 3. The glider bomb that sunk Roma was NOT a rocket, but a guided bomb. 4. 80% of the carriers sunk in the WWII were sunk by naval airplanes. The others were sunk by submarines, except 2 small escort CVs and the HMS Glorious, sunk by surface ships. 5. 75% of the capital ships (BBs, BCs, CAs) sunk in the WWII were sunk by naval airplanes, or land planes trained to attack ships. 6. Only 30% of the DDs sunk in the WWII were sunk by naval airplanes. And for sure not a Japanese or German naval plane shot a rocket in the WWII, and I cannot remember any ship sunk by rockets in WWII.
  13. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    As Captain_LOZFFVII confirm in his post, the CVs are now an anti-DD weapon. Another strange turn in WG's reality. DDs were THE MOST ELUSIVE TARGETS for air strikes, and only when kamikazes aimed them, they sustained expensive losses at the hands of airplanes. At Midway, 5 CVs were attacked by naval aviation, and all the 5 were sunk (Yorktown with the aid of a submarine). But when the same US airplanes that previously sunk 4 CVs in a row, do massive attacks to two almost crippled cruisers (Mogami and Mikuma, both damaged by mutual collision), almost 100 SBDs only managed to sink one of them. And all DDs in all the task forces involved survived the battle. Only in the "bomb alley" of the central Mediterranean sea, where DDs were overexposed, did airplanes manage to sink several of them, not counting the kamikaze attacks. Only one third of the Royan Navy DDs lost in IIWW were sunk by aircraft. May be the rocket weapons, so anti-historically included in the patch, were doing such a wonder.
  14. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    Nyet. Historically, for every single naval plane downed by flak, five of them were downed BY OTHER NAVAL PLANES.
  15. Cosimo_Botejara

    New CVs

    Hi. I have been reading carefully the last post of Rowboat_Cop, and there are several questions I cannot understand about it. First, he said that the reason of the change is the potential unbalance created by very good players when using such a powerfull resource as the former CVs were. I have no reason to doubt he's telling true, but in my experience, CVs were present in really few games, nevertheless the tiers involved. If that was the problem, CVs would have been spamming and, at least to my experience in game, they were really scarce. When a top tier player is much more skilled than his opponents, the match usually is onesided. But it's a problem ot the MM, not a problem of the class of the involved ships. I did not like former CVs cause the matchmaker. A t-2 CV were almost useless, and being less avaliale than other classes, t-2 matches in a CV were common. I'm pretty sure this problem has not been solved with 0.8 patch. In fact, what you can read in this thread is just the opposite; Top tier CVs rampaging with continuous flux of planes that AA ships (Moskva, Des Moines, ...) cannot even harm, and low tier CVs whose squadrons fall obliterated by AA fire in seconds, unable to do damage at all. I did yesterday several matches in coop mode with other ships than CVs (I'm truly scared to play random), and the present CVs (remember that there are CVs only in the human team) were with no exception the lowest of the rank. These means no skill developed, of course, but these means you ruined the CV play too. And Rowboat_Cop confirms the new CVs are here to stay, nevertheless the feedback players would do. Well, I do NOT like to play a CV using a mouse to fly planes. This is not a question WG can change. WG has not such a power. So I have no reason left to keep my CVs in the dock. All of them were to be sold just as soon as I will enter game. And I'm going to stop playing for, let me see, ... about a moth. May be in march the CV's singularity will end, and the rest of the ship classes would be played in a proper way.
×