thiextar

From trying my hand at commanding clan battles, it takes a lot more than being a good player to be a good commander, they are two very different qualities.

man i hope the cv queue becomes so long that they all choke the mm and gets exponentially longer mm time. That would be some nice karma for turning this season of ranked into a test server experiment.

But then i might aswell just play a cruiser...

Hes right tho, gunboat destroyers are really pointless now, they cant play agressively and duel stuff at short range, and if you are gonna stay at long range, you might aswell use a cruiser....

People really dont like being forced to do stuff, so id suggest using the carrot instead of the stick. Basically a missíon series that teaches the basics of the game, and for every mission you complete, you get some worthwhile reward.

Me too, i never saw a reason to switch, as i just aim by feeling anyways, my subconscious knows this crap better than me.

If they are good players to begin with, yes, a small advantage. I mean they get access to more info and get it displayed in a way that works best for the specific player, thats gonna speed up decision making. Overall though i firmly believe that it does more good than harm to the game.

The other end of the spectrum is obviously ui development. Without mods, the ui development would become completely stagnant. i dont know if you are familiar with world of tanks, but having played that game since its launch, i can tell you that every single ui improvement made since the launch of that game came from mods. I see mods as advanced settings really, beginners wouldnt know what to do with all the info, or the dozens of tabs we would have in the settings menu anyways, it would just scare new players away. This way the dedicated players can have their ui the way they want, and display all the info they want, without all these options and numbers scaring away beginners.

Honestly, if three factions already have super cruisers, i dont mind all the major factions having one each.

Well, id say that generally this bug only happnes about once in every 10 or 20 matches, so probably not. Its extremely annoying when it happens tho.

As long as your father doesnt regularly collapse, you wont get penalized for it ^^

I can confirm, i got some actually impossible dispersion in my zao a little while ago. The shells could have covered an entire city the way they landed lol, which is physically impossible with zao+dispersion module+legendary module, actually, the way they landed is impossible in the zao regardless of modules.

I assume that they automatically run a mod-sweep anytime you send a ticket or replay to them, are you sure that you arent running any illegal mods? This reminds me of that bloke on the wot forums who got a 7 day ban for sending wargaming a replay featuring illegal mods, then trying to defend himself by sending another replay with illegal mods to them, getting banned again.

This option seems like the best idea imo. It would make carriers into much more of a support class, being completely dependent on their team for spotting, or rather their team being dependant on carriers for fire support. Any option that gradually increases spotting range sounds like its too arbitrary to me, it would be a very wonky game-mechanic to keep track of. If you think about it, all current game mechanics are very simple at their core, its mostly simple operations with constant values(like 20 second bloom, 1/14,3 ap pen 1/6 he pen etc etc) I feel like adding a value that scales over time would really not fit in. If wargaming wants carriers to be able to spot late game, id much prefer an instant change from 0 to the ships spotting distance at x minutes into the game, rather than a gradual one.

Honestly, however much work you put into it, a bot is still a bot, and unless you go all out ai like they did with dota 2(which took years and a massive research project), the bots will never challenge an equal amount of players. If you want a challenge, play random battles, the only way i can see for wargaming to make coop challenging would be to have more bots than players, but then again, at that point its basically the same as operations.

Yes, wargaming is so smart, they set 12 players up to lose, so that they will make less credits. This totally doesnt mean that the 12 players on the enemy team wins and thus makes more credits, nonono, wargamings quantum rigging system magically bypasses the rules of mathematics.

I can imagine a situation where im happier with them than i currently am.

Unless you are in a slava or possibly a yamato, 20km is faaaar from your effective range... You really want to be engaging at something between 12-16km in most battleships, even if they have more range.

Why should a carrier be able to spot and damage enemies completely independently while not getting spotted himself? The class has so much utility, it really wouldnt be a bad idea to make it more dependent on its team.

What about giving planes a maximum range? say 20km from the carrier. This would mean that a carrier player has to choose which part of the map to focus his influence on, and if he wants to support the opposite flank, he would have to reposition his carrier, which will take time, same as all the other classes. I assume that the carrier population will decrease slowly during the coming year, as its now iflated by people playing the new class, so we will probably see mostly 1 cv matches in the future. This would mean that destroyers and other ships that want to flank, can keep track of where planes are flying, thereby guess where the carrier is, and just stay away from his area of influence. It could bring back counterplay in some regards. It would also mean that proper position and handling of the carrier itself becomes more important to the carrier player, along with analyzing what is happening in the match, and what is likely to happen, and move accordingly.

The problem is that wargaming is like "Pick this team if you like the honor of the soviet navy blah blah blah" NO, just NO, thats not how any of this works. There is literally a most efficient team to pick at any given time, and a graph to help choose, the problem is that wargaming doesnt cover this at all, the community had to make that graph by interpreting wargamings hieroglyphics. If you are gonna make an event like this, cut down on the role-playing bs text in the instructions for the event and just put the rules and strategies as concise and helpful as you can.

You know you can limit the strikes without lowering average damage right? Just buff damage per strike or other stats to compensate, so it becomes a sidegrade, basically removing some action and adding some planning to cv gameplay. Not saying im for or against this specific change, just saying that any change can be done without necessarily being a nerf.

If you remove victory by capping, you also remove any incentive to play for the objective, and just turn the game into any other mindless shooter. If you dont want to lose to cap, then play for the objective, push the caps, defend the caps, support your dds. Dont just sit back and farm damage.

That always pissed me off in wot. I love xvm, because i could use it properly, as it gave me information about the enemies playstyle so that i could play more optimally against them, and know which targets to look out for(reds are more dangerous than purples, because they are completely unpredictable). Then idiots started ruining the mods reputation by quiting when they saw a 45% battle....

There is literally a profit/time graph that you need to consult before choosing the optimal team for the day, thats bad event design. And thats if you know roughly how long you will be able to play during a day, and your average points income/hour, if you dont know this, you are screwed into a sub-optimal choice.