Kruzenstern

Beta Tester
  • Content count

    719
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2574

4 Followers

About Kruzenstern

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Birthday 12/10/1974
  • Portal profile Kruzenstern

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Im münchner Exil
  • Portal profile Kruzenstern

Recent Profile Visitors

705 profile views
  1. The problem with the Tirpitz is not the ship, it is its players... And sorry to say, but you OP are part of the problem, you are one of the worst players I have had the questionable pleasure of seeing in this game. 98 battles in the Tirpitz and 13K avg damage? Either you are botting, or you have some serious deficiency. In any case you should not be driving a Tirpitz at all. Players like you are what makes this game so bad despite it having so much potential. Regrettably players like you are also what pays most of WGs bills... Regardless, the Tirpitz does not need improvement. Your skills (or lack thereof) do...
  2. Well what I am saying is not that the long torps make the BBs that already hang back because of lack of brain/brawn do it, but that they sometimes force me, who tries to play a lot closer to the action, to get into the back as well. And when you avoid something like a Shima torpspread (or even a 10km spread from a cruiser that appears heading towards you, that won't even reach you but you don't know that so take evasive action anyway) by turning away, you turn very quickly from a BB pushing or at least supporting a push at 12ish km into a BB hanging back at 20km...
  3. In my experience, in the tiers where DDs have long range torps, there are a lot more of them, while in the lower tiers there are fewer, so that average is skewed. And it is not the cause, but it might be a contributing factor. The cause cannot be fixed (because brain implants don't work yet), but contributing factors might be fixed... Alas, it is just my experience that long range torps force me out of position even when trying to play correctly, and I seem to be the only one affected, so it is prolly a non issue.
  4. I don't doubt that the main reason is their lack of intestinal fortitude, or rather in my opinion their lack of cerebral fortitude. But I think that long range torps are also a contributing factor, and they more often than not force even better BB players who want to do the right thing to open range. Which amplifies the whole issue. Also, while I have no statistical evidence and tend to avoid the higher tiers like the plague because I hate the static gameplay, it DOES feel like games with fewer DDs play more dynamically just like games with fewer BBs do. The most fun matches are something like 3 BBs 6 CCs 3 DDs...
  5. Actually in most cases like that, the torps were not even shot at me but at one of our DDs near a cap or some cruiser or just speculatively spammed. But they passed their intended target and became something I had to react to due to their silly range. Playing a BB aggressively doesn't mean charging a DD head on in early battle, that is about as useful as border-sniping. And when I get torped by my target, I do almost always turn into them rather than away, it is usually at range where turning away is a viable option. I give in to your far superior arguments...
  6. It is not generally stupid. Depending on the torps' angle and course, turning away rather than into is quite regularly the best thing to do to avoid damage.
  7. Even though I try to play my BBs relatively aggressive (I find it hard to deal satisfying amounts of damage from more than 12-14 km away), it is not rare that I find myself all the way in the back regardless. Because sometimes I have to evade one of those silly long range torp drops by turning away from them rather than into them. And then I usually end up driving straight away from the action until those silly torps have passed, and courtesy of my huge turning circle it takes forever to get back. I actually think this might be a not insignificant reason for the campy BB meta, which is especially prevalent in tiers 8-10, maybe because that is where we have those silly range torps? I really don't want to nerf torps as a BB counter, quite the opposite. I really enjoy taking out BBs with DD-torps, but I always to it getting as close as possible without detection, or ambush/suicide run. But torps with ranges of more than 8km (well I could live with 10km but even that is too much imho) only create a bad meta, they don't really pose a huge threat to BBs other than forcing evasive action. I would nerf any torp range beyond 8 (10) km, but at the same time offset it by giving the torps more speed, better stealth and maybe even faster reload. And along with that, remove radar or at least reduce its range. But that's just me...
  8. Bu the criticism was constructive? He even offered solutions (fire the incompetent employees)... I know I would be fired if I did my job like WG does theirs all too often in my line of work, and I wouldn't complain. Alas, I guess vanity and $$$ trump common sense every time...
  9. The game itself is pretty good. But the guys producing it and most of the guys playing it are pretty much the worst there is, and I feel myself drifting away from it more and more. Its only saving grace is that there is no competition. If someone makes a game of the same theme and a similar quality, I will be gone in an instant, screw all my progress and premiums, the sooner I won't have to tolerate WG and their general playerbase anymore, the better.
  10. Who are you trying to kid? Quite obviously the mistake was not in the article but yet another Edited intern who applies those bonuses in game. Edited or something, since he has been Edited for years but never got fired... As if you'd plan a special where everything starts one day but the XP bonus starts another day... But of course it is easier to cover it up as a mistake in the portal article... I think at least for me your company just lost the last fidget of credibility that might have stuck around somewhere. Then again, looking at the average intellect of your customers, most of them probably buy the fables you tell them... This post has been edited by the moderation team due to swearing and insult
  11. Does it really eat citadels? I got whacked badly by a Warspite, but my superheals got me back up to 50K from 20K, which leads me to believe it was just plenty of normal pens. Or does the superheal also repair citadel damage?
  12. I only did like 65K in my first game because of a Edited cyclone basically ending a dominated domination, but it definitely feels OP to me. Dat turret layout really makes it great, and the superheal is way over the top. But hey, I'll merrily abuse it for all its worth... This post has been edited by the moderation team due to swearing.
  13. Yeah, that's why undetected cruisers in smoke never get hit by shellfire... Kiting would be a little easier, but that is kinda the point, no? And the kited ship could always shoot back, as ships would always be lockable within their own firing range. I just don't see incentives working in getting BBabies to play properly as they lack the mental capacity to understand they can earn more by playing more aggressively (they can already do that now tbh) so we need to cut into their ability to have their idea of fun from the map border. But that is just my opinion...
  14. I have been tossing this idea around in my head for quite a while, and now it is time to throw it to you to tear it apart... So what if ships lost the ability to lock on to other ships unless they are at a certain range, depending on the target ship type? For simplicity's sake, I would set that range at 12km for DDs, 15km for CA/CLs and whatever for BB/CVs (actually this should be individual for each ship, at least that value, and if the gun range is higher, the gun range, since obvioulsy WG doesn't want people shooting but unlockable by their target. The BB/CV value could be anything between like 18 and 25km, depending on whether it is desired to still allow them to shoot each other accurately at extreme ranges, or force them closer to shoot their ilk as well). The detected ship would still appear on the minimap and be rendered in the client for everyone close enough like currently, but you would not be able to lock it. So you could still shoot it if your guns have the range, but your fire would be very very inaccurate. Example: A cruiser is detected by a DD, with one enemy BB at 14km distance, and the others huddling at the map border at 18km distance. But while the BB at 14km will be able to lock him and delete him like before, all the BBs borderhugging at 18km range would see him still, but could not lock him, and thus while they would be able to shoot him even without lock, their chances for lolcitadels would be vastly reduced, kinda forcing them to play at closer ranges if they want more accurate fire. Wouldn't something like this be a soft fix for the campy long range BB meta as well as help cruiser survivability somewhat? Could even improve the value of spotter planes vastly, by allowing you to lock anything in range while your spotter plane is up, which would even make some sense... Now tell me why this is a bad idea...
  15. The real problem is that there are a whole lot of... mentally challenged.... players who stay with the game for long. Because playing battleships gives them the impression of being somewhat good, even if most of the time they lose the battle for their team. But getting that cruiser oneshot from 20km every once in a while makes them feel all giddy... And there are tons of players with 5000+ battles but otherwise horrible stats that also own lots of premium ships. And these are the guys who really pay WGs bills regrettably. Also, for quite a few of these learning-resistant censoreds the goal is not to win battles, but to fail their way to a tier 10 ship. I guess when they get it after spoiling a battle for 11 others 1000 times, they feel like winners too... I have a very hard time respecting that kind of worthless player, but to WG it is the most important customer. Of course they have to cater to them, I can even understand that decision from a business point of view. But for me it really makes the game so much worse than it could be, so I really don't like what they are doing, and they could at least be a little bit less blatant about it. What also doesn't help is them basing their balancing off ship stats. That results in niche and/or hard to play ships that are usually only touched by good players being overnerfed because they have good stats since mostly good players play them, and already good ships that have not nearly as good stats as they should because all the terribads also play them being overbuffed (Tirpitz anyone?). I don't believe WG intends to sink this game, but they are definitely making it less and less appealing to people who enjoy using their brain, and more and more appealing to those whoses heads start hurting when they try to think... And I don't like that direction.