Karasu_Browarszky

Hood ornaments?...

I was considering Napoli myself, but I don't want to go high tier brawling. I picked Marceau.

I'm not a prograt, but I wonder often how is it possible to mix up the code so you don't what's going on. I could understand it better if it were new code, but a lot of the bugs pop up in areas which should be pretty well established game components by now.

Sounds like they don't know their own code....

Sometimes, at least on my sort of cherry something mechanical keyboard, pressing keys simultaneously results in no key presses being registered. Exibel GKX-5 (GKX5) Anti-ghosting-funktion med 8 Key Rollover ”Speed Up Key”. Ändra responstid mellan 2, 4, 8 och 16 ms. Standard är 8 ms. Sorry for strange language.. Apparently, some information suggest it is not Cherry, but Kailh brown switches. Which.. incidentally, are the same Alienware uses...

Well.. we keep asking for new content...

HAHAHA I don't even spec my captains.

This is a little difficult because essentially many of them feel like artificially handicapped. Not least by all the dodgy mechanism we have, like spotting, and how BB's can be ridiculously weak when faced with a single cruiser or a DD. Can we assume that the things that would make an ideal BB in real life could be expected to work (equally well) in the game? Consistency of gunnery would be of supreme importance, so we'd need BB's with good fire control (for accuracy/dispersion) and a consistent rate of fire. Ideally, too, we'd like the sort of armor scheme that allows for the ship to engage the enemy ships while achieving optimum fire power to use against them (the number of guns bearing on the enemy). We'd also need enough horse power and mobility for tactical maneuvers. There would have to be a sort of base target for all of the different requirements to meet the minimum. The next step would be to look for areas of improvement without compromising any of the key (base) parameters laid out in the initial designs.

I think this is the first time I remember someone saying that randoms are harder than ranked.

That's something only WG devs could know, because they have access to the data showing how easy or difficult certain things in the game are in objective terms. The hardest missions to pull overall are those that require you to accomplish something 'in one battle'. You'd really need to know what percentage of the player base can do those. They can, of course, easily scale the missions in terms of difficulty, because the star system allows for multiple mission options so no one will get stuck. There might be SC reward missions, but I don't even want to know how excruciatingly difficult those might be...

Yes, something like that. The way I want to see it is that they give something for everyone, rewarding both skill and commitment in appropriate measure with guaranteed final rewards for everyone. Dynamic is a very good concept for games because it keeps things from going stale. Incidentally, dynamic says nothing about the overall level of difficulty or skill required, nor about the amount of time needed.

#5? I see a misunderstanding then. I was referring to the campaign stage missions that award the stars. Not the campaign reward itself.

What are we talking about?

The way it's always been with the campaigns. As I explained it in post #8. I'm not proposing any changes to the established campaign format. The way they were set up initially fulfills their function perfectly well. Would I like to see more dynamic content make it into the campaign? Would I like them to introduce campaigns that actually are more like campaigns, yes. Don't know how that could be made to work, and nonetheless I would not want to give up the old campaign format either.

I am opposed to time gated content on principle, because I've been around long enough to know what it does a) to the player, b) to the game in terms of how fun and engaging (or not) it is, and c) to your wallet because WG(mz) likes to give you 'friendly' way to cop out by paying to skip content... I was hoping that I made it clear that only the individual mission rewards on the various campaign stages should be linked to difficulty, not the overall campaign reward. We do have quite enough difficult and time gated missions currently going on regularly that reward the better skilled players on an almost daily bases along with the dockyard events which are very much like time gated campaigns with the main difference being that your reward is that you get to open your wallet and pay WG at the end of it...

I don't really see a problem with this, unless you want to see the campaigns as competitive content of sorts. Then, it's a different kettle of fish altogether, and very poorly implemented as 'competetive content' because you are not directly competing against other players (except indirectly through mission requirements which just makes the game toxic as you full well know) but against a pre-set time limit that you have no control over.

The campaign difficulty, traditionally, has been linked to how fast you can complete it. The harder missions award more stars, the easier missions fewer. The easy way to complete the campaigns takes longer and gives fewer rewards due to the different way of farming the stars. It's faster, more rewarding and harder to finish the campaign by completing the missions that give more stars, once at that. It's slower, less rewarding but easier to finish the campaign by repeating the missions that give fewer stars. Importantly, however, you are still guaranteed to receive the full reward for the entire campaign. And that, exactly, is the guarantee you are missing with any time gated content.

Well, I'd rather link the rewards to mission difficulty, not to overall level of difficulty with the campaigns. The main reward of the campaign, as I see it, should instead be based on the combination of mission difficulty and time it takes to finish the campaign. In this sense, the way the star system is implemented in the campains is a huge positive and tells me that there was once was a time when WG could actually develop the game and get some things right. Most things, actually, if you go back far enough... But I digress (as I often do). What is the point of having time limited campaign or content in general? You'd have to ask the psycho people that plan that time gated content for WG(mz). My guess would be a combination of various diabolical 'incentives' (read traps like cost sunk fallacy etc.) and the desire to boost player numbers on the servers. The last part I kind of get, because player retention and regularly active player base are crucial for a healthy online game. My peeve is that instead of using positive methods to achieve this, they frequently go where the bar is set the lowest and we get what we get.

I don't support the idea of removing content like that. At least not on a permanent basis, but there might be some rotation of campaigns similar to the operations (which, as we all know, we need more both old and new...). I just really hate time gated content in general, especially campaigns, so it would be important that once you start on a campaign you can finish it at your own pace.

@tocqueville8 Cheers, mate! Since I usually (on high tiers) would go for either a sniper BB or a torpedo DD, neither is exactly perhaps my cup of tea. Of those two, then, Marceau is closer to my preferences because I play more on high tier DD's than on high tier BB's. Or more battles, at least... timewise might be harder to say... However, I feel that I can influence the battle better in a DD of any sort than in a BB that has to go brawling. I don't brawl if I can help it, unless I'm playing somewhere on the lower tiers where I play much more aggressively than on the higher tiers (for most of the time). The high tiers are more of a game of hide and seek for me, with plenty of song and dance going on.

Been mostly lucky then, I don't usually see any other ship behind the island.

Thanks. I'm sort of half tempted, because the coupons will expire soon and I might be interested, either Marceau or Napoli. Apples and oranges, in other words.

Marceau.

A TYL gave me this.

Aegis is pretty simple, the transports will pretty much handle themselves, all you have to do is keep the enemy engaged to get at least one star.. so it takes a special team to throw Aegis.