Jump to content

Warhawk1984

Players
  • Content Сount

    255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2483
  • Clan

    [DKMUK]

About Warhawk1984

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. UC roll-out has done nothing but cause havoc please feel free to sign my petition on change.org and see if we can get this idiot lead government to have another look and do a full overhaul. this petition is new and if you add your experiences in the comments i will look into it and add it to the petition. if enough people sign/comment i would be willing to take this government to court on behalf of all in a class action style. if any solicitor wishes to do the right thing and help the people will the least help financially as the government wont give legal aid to us to sue them, please feel free to message me. https://www.change.org/p/the-house-s-of-parliament-house-of-lords-a-complete-review-of-the-new-style-universal-credit?recruiter=250859266&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=Search%3ESAP%3EUK%3EBrand%3EProper%3EExact
  2. Warhawk1984

    Upcoming T5 Ranked

    tier 5 like tier 10 has some seriously broken and OP ships (all premiums) the cv's them self look quite balanced certainly more balanced than 6-8 so yes tier 5 ranked can work and work well but i would seriously look at banning premium ships that tier 7 Italian bb in a tier 5 skirt can not be aloud to participate. but alas that wont happen, though i can see them making it 2/3 dd max. needs a clear format of max numbers of ships per class personally i would make it a max of (see below) so the most ships of any class you would encounter be 3/4 1 X CV 3 X BB 3 X CA/CL 3 X DD
  3. Warhawk1984

    Captain there....but where are the others?

    might as well give full crew could even make reloads longer or lose helm control as your crew burns to death from h/e spam cruisers
  4. Warhawk1984

    BB, the new Camping Class ?

    unfortunately its very paradoxical bb's get the most HP and armor not to mention a repair so you would have fought they would be prime candidates to push and well tank, on the other hand bb's get the best range in there guns so human nature kicks in, if i can hit them and they cant hit me back i am gonna win. they fail to take a 10+ second shell flight time when a few pushes of the wasd keys means they miss completely. as it currently stands it appears its cruisers taking all the risks there tanking more often than not and with dd's seemingly oblivious to the fact they cant spot in smoke its cruisers that seam to be doing the spotting as well. its not you its just the way people believe the class should be played
  5. Warhawk1984

    Pay to Win Players/ Free to Play Players

    ahh i do love a good joke. WG's business model has changed considerably since they first started, here is a article from 2013. One of the most successful free-to-play online game companies on the planet has announced a sweeping change in the way it monetizes all of its games.World of Tanks developer Wargaming.net told Gamasutra in an exclusive Q&A that it would be removing all "pay-to-win" purchase options from all of its current and upcoming titles. The initiative has already begun in the company's flagship online game World of Tanks, and will continue with upcoming titles such as World of Warplanes and World of Warships. Here's basically how the new strategy boils down: The company is calling the strategy "free-to-win," and first started testing it in 2012. The core basis of "free-to-win" is to remove allpayable options that could be viewed as giving a player an advantage in battle. Revenue will come from sales of non-advantageous content, such as premium vehicles, personalization options and the like. Free-to-win will be applied to all current and future Wargaming titles. The move is in part meant to make Wargaming a bigger player in the burgeoning eSports arena. They lied Premium ammo was added that completely made the game P2W as it effectively made armor redundant in a lot of cases. Premium's be it tanks,ships or planes were worse than there tech tree rivals,gonna use WOT for this as this article predates WOWS. A Premium tier 8 tank use look something like this a tier 8 hull/turret with a under powered tier 7 gun and in return for its under poweredness i.e not being P2W they got a better MM as well as a exp and credit boost. over the years that changed now we get premiums that are quite simply over-preforming compared to the tech tree counterparts.Andrei Yarantsau, VP of publishing at the rapidly-growing Minsk-based company, took some time to answer a few questions about the move via email: How long have you been working on this initiative, and what prompted Wargaming to do it? We've been working on for the idea of "free-to-win" for quite some time now. The conception stage began in 2011, after we took the time to tackle some internal challenges spurred on by the company's rapid growth. Elements of what would later become free-to-win were first tested in 2012. We made in-game purchases that were previously only available to paying players open to all players. Things like gold rounds, premium consumables, camouflage patterns, emblems, platoon creation and other features were switched over to be purchasable with in-game credits. Our analytics team carefully monitored how players reacted to these changes, whether they were newcomers, veterans or clan members. The player community is very sensitive to changes, especially when they concern a monetization system. That's why we fully focus test any changes we plan to make and introduce only those new features that receive positive feedback. really? ok here is my feedback STOP RELEASING OP STUFF...... the old model worked perfect buy a premium (insert here) and in return it will make you money and train your crew Why are you cutting all pay to win options? Wargaming is a company delivering free-to-play online games, and we strongly believe that you can't provide a truly triple-A free-to-play experience without absolutely making sure all combat options are free of charge to all players. We don't want to nickel and dime our players -- we want to deliver gaming experiences and services that are based on the fair treatment of our players, whether they spend money in-game or not. The amount of time and effort payers and non-payers spend to succeed in-game may differ, but at the very least the list of accessible options at their disposal remain identical. Free-to-play games have the challenge of being sometimes viewed as low quality, and we want World of Tanks to serve as proof that a quality and balanced free-to-play game is possible. However, breaking down deeply-rooted stereotypes is no easy task. This isn't just about the game economics of World of Tanks, either. We aim to completely overhaul the free-to-play concept that exists as a whole in the gaming community by getting rid of the idea of "pay-to-win," ultimately helping lead what we consider the roll-out of "version 2.0" of free-to-play gaming. Hum they didn't pay to win is very much still apart of this game and indeed most WG titles, when you can buy flags that stop your ship from detonating is a unfair advantage against the player that cant afford them. buying a flag that increases your chance to start a fire and cause more damage is a unfair advantage against the player that cant afford them. if they stuck to things like premium camaos/flags that boost exp/credits/reduces repair costs thats fine it dont effect gameplay How exactly do you define a "pay to win" item or option, and can you give a few examples of items that won't make the cut? Well, the first example that comes to mind is the legendary "Sword of a Thousand Truths" from the television show South Park. Seriously, though, many online shooter games sell weapons with slightly bigger magazines, a slightly greater chance of critical hits or slightly more damage for real world money. Also, cash shops in fantasy MMO games often offer items that increase item drop rates, scale hit rates or grant extra player protection. heres my example: a player shooting at a e-100 in a IS-3, they can't pen it reliability so they push a button the ammo chages to a type that is either a lot more expensive (so players with limited ingame funds can't really afford, and if they go out with premium ammo they will lose credits fast 90% of the time or gold which costs $$$$) now suddenly they can pen the e-100 just about everywhere making armor pointless just a dps vs hp race then. sounds like PAY 2 WIN to me How do you expect this will affect your revenue? The free-to-win concept is sure to enhance customer loyalty and attract new players to the game. As for the company's economic efficiency, we expect no decline in profits. If anything, the introduction of our free-to-win features will likely cause a decrease in the purchase of premium ammunition. At the same time, however, players will use gold to buy credits, pay for premium account status, or purchase premium vehicles. In the end we project that it will all balance out. In Asia, last I heard, they're ok with pay to win items, and like to spend a lot of money on them. Have you considered that you may lose business in that region? Asia remains an important market for in-game purchases, and the major gaming companies in that region are still trying to fully understand our business model. In World of Tanks, paying is no guarantee of success. And obviously, this is discordant with what that region is used to. Our players in China, for example, are very rational when it comes to in-game choices. Instead of sticking to the Chinese tech tree, they choose machines that offer the most amount of fun and profit. The Chinese government is focused on the prosperity and comfort of its people, which resonates well with what the free-to-win model offers. This idea and the fact that World of Tanks clones have already appeared in the Chinese gaming market assure us that our project will continue to be a success there. What opportunities do you see in eSports, as a business? Why focus on this now? Wargaming's support of eSports is an integral part of our overall market strategy. Most importantly it involves building a global network of games and services. The launch of the Wargaming.net League has given players great tools to step up and go pro, while those who wish to remain spectators can stay up to date with all of our tournaments through online streams. Our new World of Tanks features, including recent changes in our business model, are aimed at further growing our games in this direction. Professional sport -- and gaming is no exception -- is about fair competition. The introduction of our new free-to-win system will really help facilitate the development of World of Tanks as a true eSports discipline. The Wargaming game design team has been focusing heavily on competitive elements for our games, so we're eager to see this all catches on with our players. What's wrong with pay to win, or for that matter, what's wrong with a lot of the F2P monetization schemes you see today? The classic free-to-play model, particularly in regards to pay-to-win elements, follows one simple tenet -- the more you pay, the greater your advantage over other players. It results in huge payments from a small number of users (the so-called "whales") and increases a game's average ARPU [average revenue per user] and ARPPU [average revenue per paying user] numbers. Top-payers end up never losing, while those who pay less or don't pay grow dissatisfied with the game. Eventually, many leave entirely and the overall player base shrinks. The World of Tanks monetization system is built the other way round. Deep gameplay and great replay value provide comfortable and fair conditions for everyone. The game has no overpowered weaponry and microtransactions don't give users any sort of advantage in combat. Premium items are priced so that players rarely end up having to spend a lot. We don't want World of Tanks players to feel like it's an experience that only a select few can afford. Quite contrary, we want the game to embody accessibility and fairness to all players, paying or not. The game has no overpowered weaponry and micro transactions dont give users any sort of advantage in combat??? really so using a premium consumable i brought with 15 doubloons say a smoke generator that gives me a extra charge and a 80 second reduction in cooldown don't give me any advantages in battle? now over to the OP what your asking for is already here, F2P players are often playing at a disadvantage compared to players that get there wallets out. This is purely because on a equal skill level the wallet warrior will make more credits than the free to play player on average, the f2P player will struggle to stay solvent financially while the wallet warrior makes a profit for just turning up
  6. Warhawk1984

    New british premium ship idea

    9.5km vs 6.9km aerial concealment is massive in a ship that is basically built round stealth, and dont hold up well against any kinda of bb/cruiser fire its almost 25% worse than the perth. a seconds a second its still 10% worse than the perth concealment 10.5 vs perths 10.1 not much of a difference here to be honest there both designed to be stealthy i get what your saying the shear DPM is too much for its tier and you maybe right, i may have to re-think it as a tier 6 and look more towards tier 7. convinced me to even change it to a tier 7 premium rather than a tier 6 premium we don't want more OP ships. on to issues about smoke + spotter plane combo being OP spotter plane is vastly different to radar, first it has a effective counter (shooting it down) second it flies around in random directions it's not like you can order it to say j5 (if you can i be doing it wrong). as a spotting tool it is rather limited if anything the range boost to the guns will more than likely be a bigger bonus
  7. Warhawk1984

    New british premium ship idea

    your right i would love to see the dido, i would love town class and county class i am suggesting a ship for a role that don't mean i dont want the other British class's and sub class's added at some point, hell with the amount of ships we had at the start/end of the ww2 we could make another 3 cruiser lines and still miss some out
  8. Warhawk1984

    New british premium ship idea

    i have taken peoples suggestions, listened to your arguments and updated the OP. it is not my intention to make a OP ship but a ship that fills the premium gap we are currently missing on the British cruiser line. if it appears OP in anyway point it out and/or come up with a counter. for example i increase the spot from air range massively to compensate a little for its stealthiness in smoke
  9. Warhawk1984

    New british premium ship idea

    you maybe right, that would be down to the balancing department to give it weaker ap shells to justify its tier i was thinking a max ap damage of 2800 as well has a relatively slow shell speed kinda like the arcing type the Americans get. also its worth noting that with a 2800 max ap damage the theoretical potential damage per salvo would be 33600 compared to the leanders 24800 so you are right it might still be a little OP but this can be balanced against gun bloom and or rudder shift
  10. Warhawk1984

    New british premium ship idea

    we got well had the belfast which really didn't work out all to well so well in fact it had to get pulled from sale, this has left a gap in the game for a british CL premium this is my idea for a good replacement. i would recommend they add HMS Kenya (14) at t̶i̶e̶r̶ ̶6̶ ̶(̶y̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶t̶i̶e̶r̶ ̶6̶)̶ tier 7 to supplement the fiji and replace the Belfast (please note i am not referring to the ships already owed in game) as the British premium CL (the kenya is the same class as the fiji) ball park stats would be almost the same as the fiji's including the British flavor of AP only shells. Displacement: 8,530 tonnes standard 10,450 tons full load Length: 169.3 m (555 ft) Beam: 18.9 m (62 ft) Draught: 5 m (16 ft) Propulsion: Four oil fired three-drum Admiralty-type boilers Four shaft geared turbines Four screws 54.1 megawatts (72,500 shp) Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h) Range: 6,520 nmi (12,080 km) at 13 kn (24 km/h) Complement: 730 Armament: 12 × BL 6 inch Mk XXIII naval guns in four triple turrets 4 × twin QF 4 in (102 mm) Mark XVIguns 4 × twin 40 mm Bofors AA guns 3 × quadruple QF 2 pounder ("pom-pom") AA mounts 6 × twin 20 mm AA guns 2 × triple 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tube mountings Armour: Belt: 83 mm (3.3 in) Deck: 51 mm (2.0 in) Turrets: 51 mm (2.0 in) Director control tower: 102 mm (4.0 in) Aircraft carried: Two Supermarine Walr however i would reduce the range of the main guns to 12.6km range ( worse than the Leander only just better than the emerald) with slightly worse concealment say around 10.5km detection range. to compensate for the appalling range she would keep the 2 aircraft that were removed later in her life, as well as having the British flavors smoke and AP only shells. consumables would be 1 smoke, 2 spotter plane/fighter (the smoke would be the creeping type like the Perth just because i like the look of it) 3, hydoacoustics basically a gimped fiji at tier 6 with its 1 main feature being like the belfast the ability to spot for it's self in smoke. basic stats that would differ to the fiji HP 27500 (slightly worse than the leanders) Rudder shift 8.5 seconds worse than the leanders much worse than the fijis Torpedos the 533 Mk V (emeralds stock torpedos) concealment 10.5km (by ship) 9.5km (by air) 5km when firing guns in smoke. the air detectability is a huge drawback compared to the leander and fiji at 6.7 and 7.3 respectably what do you guys think?
  11. Warhawk1984

    Wee Vee gate

    lets be honest the US have more than enough premium ships certainly a crew trainer for each class is already present. i would suggest WG look to add a British CL and this time listen and look at the game the belfast just dont work as a crew trainer as it uses H/E not to mention its got a reputation of being P2W that tag might not be completely justified but its there, and no longer available to purchase.
  12. Warhawk1984

    Can we have axis vs. allies events?

    so at the 15 min mark the french ships return to port as they surrendered, at the 10 min mark the roma's go from red to green.
  13. Warhawk1984

    Improve 203 mm guns reload cruisers

    the reason zao's has a longer reload if for balance. the zaos has a extra turret over the des moine so more potential damage per salvo on top of that the zao's ap max damage is better with 5400 over the 5000 the des moine has. and finally while not a massive difference the zaos has better rage at 16.2km vs the dm's 15.8km
  14. Warhawk1984

    Belfast

    wg dont nerf premiums tell that to the kv-5 on WOT yeah it got a few buffs but not enough to be competitive against tier 9/10's and its still weak vs tier 8's the armor NERF it got to the rear made it easy pen for tier 6's the gun cant pen tier 10's reliable yet its frontal armor is easy to pen even with tier 7's, it lost preferential mm as well looks like they do nerf premiums maybe not in wows yet but it will come. i thank you all for your input i will try some of these approaches in my upcoming battles where i see a belfast
  15. Warhawk1984

    Belfast

    yes hence why they call it the Winfast
×