Jump to content

HaganeNoKaze

Beta Tester
  • Content count

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6024
  • Clan

    [OCG-R]

About HaganeNoKaze

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Insignia
  1. Holiday Lottery - Try your luck!

    Nice initiative ! Thanks to all donators ! And of course, I would join the Raffle too ! :) And Happy holidays to you all ! #1: Roma if available, Prinz Eugen if not. #2: De Grasse #3 and after: Doubloons
  2. this is why carriers are UNPLAYBLE

    @El2aZeR Totally agreed with your last answer. Oh i'm fine about fighters shooting down my bombers, it's even normal and necessary (When did i complain about this ?). Carriers wouldn't be carriers without Fighters ! I was complaning about the ones being some ****ers ONLY playing AS to destroy others players's game (certains doing this to the point they wouldn't spot, doign nothing, just chasing after ennemies planes to disgust ennemy CV) and the poor balance to the point you could just sit some entire game afk or only waiting to see cause there are too much AA around, reducing the game to a 11v12.
  3. Are you sad to see USN CV AS Decks go?

    "Are you sad to see USN CV AS Decks go?" ... ... ...
  4. this is why carriers are UNPLAYBLE

    @ForlornSailor Excepting I don't admit and I'm against the fact that BBs are able to OS anything on map, just to clarify ! :p Totally agree about your AA example and chess comparison, though. (And I would add that from the same perspective, it's unfair when you play CV, you see your planes falling apart, when you can do nothing about it (there are some games were AA is everywhere), and you know that the ennemy player gains both money and exp while doing nothing (cause using "approximately" AA is doing nothing). @El2aZeR Sorry but, I still want to improve, and I have fun while losing on certain battles, and i am even glad to lose and congratz ennemies player for doing well while still learning about these games (watching replay, using training room to test such and such stuff, etc). Losing and having no fun are not the same thing, the games I quoted are definitely games that you have fun even if you are being ruined, losing and being sunk without doing anything, or even laughing out while I was oblitarated, it's just too rare on WoWs (and pretty common in games I quoted). I'm only talking on the loser side there, I'm pretty sure that the winner has fun. (Well, tbh, When I play BB, if I OS a cruiser, I'm rather like "Fun and engaging [edited]..." instead of laughing out, happy for the insta massive damage and the kill (I only quote the easiest example, but i'm thinking the same while using AA spec cruiser in clans training, or seeing an explosion from an ennemy)). Maybe I'm a weirdo thinking that way, but I'm still hope to have more fun to everyone and better development considering bringing fun instead of only focusing on balance, no matter what, even if the game ignores the ideas of "fun" and "fairplay". Sorry for the little text wall though. About AA design, It's necessary, definitely, and i'm not sure it could be changed for something better though, technical and coding limitations spoken(If i remember well, WoWs do not have a real spacialization (I mean we are playing on the same plan, this is why planes couldn't change altitude as example, even if you see planes animations higher than your ships) like WoWp have).
  5. this is why carriers are UNPLAYBLE

    You totally misread me. First, i definitly quoted dictionnary: game An activity that one engages in for amusement or fun. ‘the kids were playing a game with their balloons’ (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/game) I didn't see anything about ruining the other's fun or something, If you are thinking that ruining the of others is the design to go, the problem is only you, or maybe you are a sadist... ! (just kidding though) To answer your call, In the list you quote, one game IS fun even if you loose: -Mario Kart, through it's balance, it's a racing game, everybody has nearly the same karts/weight/accelerations (Well, there are fews differences, but nothing really above breaking the balance). If you are frustrated when you loose at mario kart, you are probably just a sore loser (Don't see any hatred or disrespect there, just a fiding). I'm pretty sure you are someone ready to win at any cost. (And no, i'm thinking that way, if I can win without killing the fun of my opponent, I would definitely do it). Out of your list: -Chess -Uno -Fortnite (well, joker about this one, the design make the game less frustrating, nut you can still play to ruin the others's fun) -Trackmania -Go -Japanese Mahjong And these games are PVP, we are not talking strictly about wargame (why only quoting them though (excluding MK and SSB), you are a violent boy, don't you ? And these are games were you definitely have fun (or even losing is worth, learning something new (like strategy, move, or so) (Chess/GO)), even in case of losing. Well, I suppose that if I would have to play against you, I would just anti gambling to the point I would do anything possible to make the game the most uninteresting possible, killing fun ? Okay, no fun for anybody ! (Even If I like your taste about games, C&C 4life (C&C 4 never existed)). Anyway, no need to going further in the discussion, the way we think are too much different. And it wasn't the subject of the thread. @ForlornSailor Somehow, for your first statement, I try to give some credit to the WG will to make a CV a support class without being useless as you stated. CV wouldn't be useless, if you reduce both AA and their damage, potentially, you should be able to deal as much damage on time, plus being able to spot more efficiently, more passive damage (Which i wish WG would increase a bit more the experience and money received to doing it). Plus, surface ship players would accept CV slightly more (we have so much CV haters even today...). In the idea you put, I suppose that you consider planes as consumables only ? It feels wrong, personnal POV. I still arguing that is more fun to land 10000 hits per game dealing only 1 damage than having only paper planes, most falling apart, carrying a nuclear warhead and only one hit being able to deal thousand and thousand of damage, bringing destruction around. The first case is fun and not really frustrating for anybody, the second is definitely uninteresting, frustrating and such badly thinked. (There are nothing with balance, being useful or efficient, it's just a philosophy). Well, on your contrary, I would stop playing if AA would be increased, I don't care not being able to OS a ship, but I care about losing planes, i don't see them as consumables (maybe I roleplaying it a bit too much, but IRL, a plane lost, especially it's pilot was already a fail itself, and it should be interesting to have such aspect in game too.) Yeah, I overlook for GZ change, this is exactly a thing that I find stupid atm (so we definitely don't have the same Point of View xD), I was thinking the same with the Enterprise "Oh I OS a Bismarck...." I was more angry than having fun ! Well, it's just differents points of view, I don't support yours, but I respect them though.
  6. this is why carriers are UNPLAYBLE

    We already stated it before but... Definition of a game: Bring FUN. World of warship do not bring fun on certain aspects (several ones). Conclusion: World of warships is not a game. Game development basic rule (one of them at least): A game bring enjoyment through balance. Conclusion: So WG devs are bad game developpers (okay that's not new..) More seriously though, OP has some (few but definitely existing) points And claiming that being able to have something to kill someone's fun is a sadist, an idiot, or just a retard. If we would to have more fun through carriers, we would need to: -Bring a real balance between different nations fighters. Then it would remove a certain frustration plus permitting to any players to claim air superiority and removing the possibility to certain players (they exist definitely) that play only to annoy the others CV players while playing AS. Removing them would just let thing even worst, CV need to chase each others planes. best players are the ones being able to striking, spotting and providing AA cover at the same time (and this is WHY CVs are interesting to play !). Adding even more tools to fighters (or adding a real light capacity (not tail gunner... their DPS is close to be inexistent) to strike aircraft to defend themselves or so... open idea) to not limit them to only providing AA / Spotting (which a void DB could do better, even after a raid). -Bring some real balanced setup to USN carriers, then next WG move is on the right way, but that's not it yet. I mean... giving a Tier 8 DB to midway, or such squadron around ? Is it.... useful ?... in a world where any AA ship at the same tier could already rekt any squadron ? Adding a underrated TB squadron ? nice [edited]. -Nerf AA, for obvious reasons. -Nerf CV damage, it's definitely necessary to balance them. They are already wonderful tools in good hands and the possibility to sink an undefended ship in one raid should not exist. Combining both precedent points would result to hae less frustration while loosing less planes but permitting to land more hits (those hits doing less damage, it would be slightly more acceptable for surfaces ship players.. (except stubborn ones)). -Improve CV against BBs and somehow CAs and nerf them against DD. Especially about spotting. I'm agree that a part of CV job is spotting. But as for the AS setup shouldn't being able to just completely contest an other CV to play, a CV shouldn't prevent a DD to play the way they want, in a certain measure. While more and more BBs playing behind like good cowards, and should be punished for this. There are plenty of way to improve or change CV gameplay to make it better, it is just necessary to test it, and test it WITH community, there are plenty good players around that would be glad to help. On the other hand, removing CV from the actual clan battle definitely improved the quality of the games in the mode... That's sad, but real. Adding CVs in clan war actually would erase the presence of certains ships (the ones with bad AA or bad concealment).. This is why the actual CV is not really competitive actually and need an overhaul.
  7. cvs, quite frustrating little things

    While you are several valids point, please remember that every player play for himself first. CVs are no exception. Well, you could have some potato CV which just are doing crap again and again, never spotting (even not knowing what "spotting" mean), suiciding planes on heavy AA platform and such crap. On the other hand, on certain game, while you are certain what's happening on your side is the keypoint of the battle, something bigger is happening on the other side. Consider too that spotting do not grant that much exp, and we all play for our own progression first... (And certain defeats grant more experience/money for playing just for yourself than certains victory playing/devoting enterly to the team... ! (Which is... stupid, I could only agree on that)) Allocating just one squadron to spot for your allies could prevent you to even being able to intervene in cerains conditions, or even could help you to end with no planes at all if you allocat a fighter to this task... (well, extreme exemple, no sane player would dedicate a fighter to only spotting lol) Or extreme case, team being like "me aa me aa me aa me aa (even some playing in DM... Iowa AA spec... or such ship), me spot me spot me spot" while the ennemy carrier playing strictly AS and outplaying you, then you're ending like "I don't care", being reported without being able to do any crap. So, I would prefer to see your game before siding you or CV. Cause, maybe you ended with an infinite shitty carrier player, or maybe you misjudge what's happening. Please just consider that CV is already enough frustrating to play when your team allways call for babysitting while you are quite busy to manage several squadrons at several poins of the maps.
  8. Air Craft Carriers

    So you'd probably never play a well designed/developped game. Cause the principle of any game is... providing fun, even in defeat, and this kind of game exists. We could simply quote Chess. Any class should start to be fun before being efficient. In the case of the CV, I would find better to hit with 150 torpedoes each game dealing each for 1 point of damage instead of having 1 torpedo nearly impossible to hit with able to OS any ship, or even a nuclear warhead !... the first case is fun, even if you deal only 150 damage per game, the second is not and stupid above that, even if you deal thousand and thousand damage. The problem with this class is it's nearly impossible to balance: If too much tools/damage capability is granted, the CV will just win the battle alone while sinking any ship around, or helping team to do it. Which is stupid and unwanted. If not enough tools/damage capability or too good AA defence is granted, the CV would be useless and not fun to play. Actually, the CV is quite efficient in good hands, but so [edited]annoying to play, boring as hell. Especially for a player considering History, thinking that losing all planes without reason is unfair and do not give will to play (no sane player would accept to loose plane if it's worthless). On paper, to balance CV, CV should be able to: Deal damage without being able to sink any ship in one strike. Spotting a ship without being able to perma spotting it (I am even thinking that DD shouldn't be spotted by planes, it would resolve several problem, or only under certain conditions). AA should kill some planes without rampaging entire squadrons in a couple of seconds. Nations should have air parity at all tier (fighters talking) with one unique setup, then only skill would matter and every player would have his chance to perform well... Being able to deal with any ship without being a counter to it. Being able to land a hit to any ship alone, even with AA spec (point already stated by WG that a surface ship alone shouldn't be able to counter a CV alone.) Giving some help to the team without being dominant or winning tool in some good hands. Etc etc... Well, it's too much to balance. From some other PoV, well, CV is a class that should just disappear cause: You can't fight again something you don't see. Unlimited range = BS "I w@nn@ play w/o being disturbed, this is sooooo unfair... !" "I don't care about the fly/reload time of the planes, if it's targetting me, then it's a no !" And any other selfish/hypocrite whines/cries... In that case, the player base is just selfish, calling for "we don't care about history, it's a game" (several of them call for History reference when we are talking about surface ships... such hypocrites.), and would probably never accept it.
  9. Wow ! I just notice this topic now, my favourite Kancolle shipgirl has nothing really special, but she is important for me (And I considering her sister as her in WoW ! :p ) :
  10. Year of the CV again. After the joke in 2016, WG repeat it again in 2017. Instead of focusing on nullify the capacitiy of carrier to engage such or such target (cause AA nullify CV, it does not limit them ! You infringe your owns rules about fair play by preventing CV players to play and habving fun..), It should be interesting to improve other spec of the ships (improving DD concealment vs planes, reducing damage of Air Torpedoes/Bombers agains DD)... I heared that devs working on AA and the ones working on CV are not in the same team... If that's true, it's very stupid. 2018, Year to remove CV ?...
  11. Rejoignez nous ! Nous le voulons !
  12. Ribbons irl

    So good ! Nice idea !
  13. Meanwhile i agree that BBs are supposed to counter CAs... on the other hand, DDs are supposed to counter BBs and it's not done as efficiently than BBs vs CAs. This is a problem, definitely, counter shouldn't mean One shot (cause it's actually the case 1 for 2 and extremely easily...), or i would be fine if DD could delete BBs as easily than BBs can delete CAs. Or instead that BBs should counter CAs as easily than DDs can counter BBs or CAs can (well, not as efficiently that it should be...) counter DDs. Plus, only the BBs has the capacity to defend itself efficiently againts the class that is supposed to counter it...
  14. How to Fix Aircraft Carriers

    @Drunken_Jedi Nice ideas there. Sorry for the bad english ! Well, there are several balance issues about carriers: -Planes shouldn't be able to fly and spot without limit, especially destroyers that suffer about it. Fly time should be limited, and planes spot range reduced (anti-historic, but it's a game, who cares about history in a game). -AA is actually too much powerful, but satisfy the mass into the player base that couldn't accept to play in team (maybe they are selfish, who knows). -AA being automatic, and players usually improving it only for selfish reasons, shooting down planes shouldn't reward some credit and exp until several conditions are respected (like being near from a certain number of allies, or team mate for example). And fighters shooting strike planes should reward more exp when being close from allies. -Fighters and setup should balanced between IJN and US, to permit air parity from both nation. -Manual and automatic aiming should be balanced around several factor, torpedoes should be a bit longer in manual, but a bit closer than actually in automatic, that would permit a better prevention of the damage for the destroyers, awared cruisers and battleships, but without permitting to be completely avoided everytime. -Reducing strike planes damages while reducing the overall AA (let say 60% less damage for 45-50% less AA, just for example) wouldn't change the stats to much, but would improve the entire class, making it funnier to play. -Nerf manual AA control, this skill is to efficient and to easy to use (ctrl+click to trigger it... so skillful ), permitting certains ships to be almost invulnerable to Airstrikes (or Give some skills to be invulnerable to shells, like shield or CIWS targetting shells ! That would sound the same then.) Now, there are more issues, around player base, that do not permit to carriers to be balanced efficiently. -AS loadout are done to help the team, but things are a bit more complicated: -Players choosing this loadout play it for: -Truly helping the team (they are very very very rare). -Annoy ennemy carriers (They are the more numerous), cause they are trolls. -Others classes players want the carrier to play AS to support their team while they often, for the most of them, playing only for themselves and do not care about helping the team, they would to be covered by carrier but wouldn't never help the carrier... Quite paradoxical, selfish and hypocrite. -"Surface" players couldn't never accept to receive some damage from someone that they can't hit back. (On the other hand, they can accept to have an automatic system in game to prevent them to be damage and being rewarded for it (AA guns and secondaries), quite paradoxical again . Plus, some don't admit to be disturbed when playing afar without being threatened. -Players wanting to see carriers deleted are the perfect example of the population that would prevent to have a better balance and development for carriers. -"Whales" are for the most battleships players, so, it's normal for WG to "protect" them. Let's be honest, gain money prevail on the balance. But nothing abnormal there, they develop game to earn money. (This is why they were quite surprised when releasing Saipan and saw that she was been sold quite well.) -Wargaming games are fun when doing some damage and kills, CV are supposed to do some too, AS is definitely boring and not rewarding. But others player do not care since they think about themselves first and thinking that carrier is only here to cover their [edited], no damage need to them . Once again, paradoxical and hypocrite. To summary, carriers cannot be balanced well, the player base in wow cannot accept them for the most, as the most WoT players cannot accept artillery, in general for selfish and hypocritical reasons. There are several things that could be improved in game, but most would not be welcome by the ones do not playing them.
  15. @ghashpl Quite true, and very sad. WG prefer to satisfy the mass, including most of their "whales" (and most of them are just between average and bad). @Ishiro32 Great post, I am not agree with all points (especially when discussing about USN TBs VS IJN ones) but the post points one of the future problem. @Avenger121 Being OP and being fun are 2 differents things. I would even prefer to have 300 torpedoes hit by battle, inflicting 1 damage point with no flood chance by hit, instead of having only one torp (cause all planes falling down from AA) hit with a nuclear warhead. First is fun (though not efficient, but idc, second is op, and so boring.)
×