Jump to content

Ungrim_Baraz

Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    8610
  • Clan

    [UNICS]

About Ungrim_Baraz

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

190 profile views
  1. Ungrim_Baraz

    Update 0.8.1.1

    From Sub Octavian´s post on how the New AA works: And then it goes on explaining how many flak bursts ther are and where they appear. Maybe you and I understand differnet things from this text but the base constant dps is clearly assigned to a randomly chosen plane (which upon getting shot down might make your bombing reticle to compeltely shift 10 metres off to the side and make the whole attack run pointless, yuhu! jsut because RNGesus wanted that exact plane to be shot down) and the numebr of flak clouds follows a normal distribution with average on the refernece nuber of flak times accuracy and maximum == refernece flak cluods. If you do not see randomness there with zero input from the player, check once again. So yes, AA is purely random. Another way of defending what I said is taht you have one and only one thing to do: set up the reinforced sector, once it is up there is no furhter possible input form the player. Setting up the secotr is done at an "strateguic" level coordinating it wiht your turn, there is no actual skill involved on it and the outcome is not always the same despite setting up the sector, hence yes, there is randomness in the actual attack run´s defense and no skill. Also, about the comparisson with main guns. Hoe many times do you fire the guns? on a BB I might get maybe 150 shells out and score 50 hits (example), how many times do you get attacked by a CV? 3, 4? over 150 shells the randomness across the whole gameplay experience gets smoothened up toward the average, if you are attacked just a few times, no, each attack will feel different without any further possible input from the defender. Your point, fair enough, that can be a niche for DDs. But that is not the way in which WG "sells" this change. They are aware of the big problem this strong stealth long range AA poses, but they cannot afford any more backslash from DDs, hence they are trying to sell the tweak in a rather sly way, as a nerg for CLs due to the big problems cuused on the CVs, but without addressing how the same exact problem arises from these DDs without counter on the CV side (it is so enjoyable getting your Lexington whole squadron obliterated by a Harugumo which could not be detected in any way until he presses P and your whole squadron is orange or red in one go) You are basing your argumentation on preceived expectation (which, for example, do not correspond to my expectations), I am basing mine in mathematics, and you claim I am wrong. Perfect. Nothing to add. Check a bit after my original post, there is another entry from somebody expressing exactly the same situation I did originally here, going on about how unfair is the immediate healing of returning damaged planes (this was specially braindead coupled with the F spam problem). bye
  2. Ungrim_Baraz

    Update 0.8.1.1

    I have been here since CBT, never been a good CV player, but I do want them in the game. Sadly the rework is a total failure, and the tweaks announced in 0.8.1.1 nothing but tiny cosmetic changes. @MrConway, @Tuccy, @Crysantos The four biggest [edited]ups of the whole rework are, IMHO: No skill vs skill, the AA is pure RNG. Skill attack vs RNG defense will always yield frustration on either the attackers (never improving or knowing how to as there is no human action on the other end upon which to reflect and learn) or the defender (bound to see their defense overcome if anything is wrong on the balance or just by pure luck), the best you can hope for is an average good enough but not too strong leading to this population split, bad CVs will always be bad, and good ones will always be uncounterable. Easiest thing would be nerfing the ship AA as a function of high speed / tight turnng circle, giving the attacker a way of assessing the power of the enemie´s defense by reading the battlefield (in the same way you assess the armor profile your target is giving you when deciding whether to fire or change target) and the defender a way of influencing its AA and decissions to be made: Stopping for higher AA, or dodging. No plane flight altitude control => Imposible to handle air spotting properly in a risk vs reward model. If you had altitude contol (i.e. like submarines had depth control in the Halloween mode) it would be so simple to avoid perma spotting DDs by just limitting the small ships spotting to low and risky altitudes, and even linking this altitude to the actual attack runs (and AA, having longer ranges and higher overall dps at low altitude and only big AA guns reaching high altitudes but with lower radius and dps approaching a kinda semisphere volume of AA fire in cylinder chunks per altitude level). By the way, about the air spotting detection change... A big load of quick improvised bull... the stealth AA firing is still a perfect and viable reality on things like Gearing, Z-52, Grozovoi, Kitakaze, Harugumo (perfectly capable of devastating a squadron with the long range AA by enabling it once the squadron is, let´s say, 1 km into its long range AA)... What you are implementing is nothing but a second thought rushed patch and not a concept´s flaw solution. No repair time for succesfully returning damaged planes to the deck, this leads to the need of overperforming AA as the only thing that counts is plane kills (discrete in its nature vs continious like damage). If AA was not overbuffed any ship which just damaged planes would see all this damage vanish if the damaged plane returns to the deck, hence it would be an easy way for CV players to exploit mechanics "magically" creating hp upon returning the squadrons. This can only be countered by overbuffing AA in order to actively get plane kills rendering useless the whole concept of multiple attack runs as there will be not much of an squadron left after the first pass (and making nigh impossible avoiding getting deplaned in late game independently on CV player skill / care). The damage model should account for the hp to be recovered by damaged planes returning to the deck making the preparation of these damaged planes to be some time proportional to the preparation of a fresh plane in relation to the hp to be recovered, in this way low AA ships would not loose their contribution to the overal plane hp, and hence do contribute to hindering the CV unlike in the current system in which you either get the palne kill or do nothing, and no low AA ship can get kills unless miracle happens (perfect flak) or AA overbuffed. It is a classical tower defense problem with an inbound hp flux to be countered by dps, but in the current system the hp can magically be created upon returning to the deck, solution: avoid any returnign plane => overbuff AA. No CV Hull control: This leads to the need for stupid idiotic dumb autopilot + auto consumables. Also, pure arrogance from your side refusing to acknowledge the nature of CVs being a dual entity, planes on the one hand, ship on the other. The ship´s control and management is null in this rework and it should not be this way. This is World of WARHSIPS, more ship control is perceived as a clear need. Tiny example: repair on planes should be moved to the CV meaning that the deck crew hurries up to repair the returning squadron (this obviously ties up to the previous point about returnign damaged planes), but this obviously needs proper manual consumables (upon which Superintendent would influence unlike now, as any other ship. Remember? that was one of the rework´s objectives, make CVs be played more inline to other classes making player experience more comparable), because if you eventually make Hakuryu stealth torping a balanced feasible tactic, well, what is repair good for on those planes? I´d like to tell my deck crew to focus on repairing the dive bombers rather than the near mint returning torpedo bombers... All these are core concept flaws which no amount of fine number tunning is ever gonna address. And the community has been giving you this kind of feedback since the very beginning of private test all the way till 0.8.0 was implemented. You never even acknowledged any core concept problems and refused adamantly to things like the CV hull control unanimously requested by the community with deep argumentation like "Nope". Sad, very sad. PD: @MrConway I do not want to sound aggressive and I do thank you personally for keeping up with the forum so much. I do understand and agree with the live server incremental buff/nerf approach, but I am deeply dissapointed with the rework concept itself and have zero confidence at all on the model ever being balanced and enjoyable with, what I perceive, as concept flaws (and I am not the only one, ask iChase). So, yeah, thank you personally, but not you WG...
  3. Ungrim_Baraz

    Update 0.8.0.3

    Utter trash. and very very sad. This announcement along with your plans made public for development until 8.4 show above all how far from ready the whole CV rework concept was, as the whole community told you during private and publlic test, but your arrogance and stuborness won over sense and reasson and you committed, stupidly, to a fixed release on a given update instead of waiting for feature ready... I am fed up of giving this same feedbackonce and again, let´s see if anyone in WG reads it: @Tuccy, @Sub_Octavian, @MrConway, @Crysantos Lack of CV hull control: leads to stupid dumbification with autoconsumables, annoying experience (stupid and annoying autopilot), and aborted strikes (in which you might have spent consumables) just for the sake of, for example, changing the lame AA sector. CVs are, as Fara said, a dual entity, a host and a deployed unit you need to take care of both by nature. If you are keen on not giving any management over the CV hull, [edited]leave it in port (outside the map) and let the palyer just control air strikes from outside the map and call it WoWs meets WoWp. As long as this game is WoWs, having an active role of the CV hull and the deck management should be imperative. Lack of proper deck operations: CVs should have a "manpower" resource, a kind of currency, constantly generated (i.e. 100 per second) to be spent on whatever combination of squadrons the player wanted to prepare (each one with potentially a different cost in manpower. example by double tapping the 2/3/4 keys, because 1 is hull, the preparation of said squadron is enabled or not. to actually launch a given squadron single tap the key and then left click). This would lead to you WG having a better control over the hp genenrated per second by the CV unlike now in which this greatly varies depending on wheher the CV player tries to stick just to one squadron type (low hp generation) or cycles (forced cylcle independent on the battle conditions) in order to have three queues of squadron preparation and hence lack of depth and strategic decissions because the squadron choice is tied to just maximizing the CV´s hp generation. Returning damaged planes to the CV lead to free hp generation: Returning damaged planes should go through a partial preparation time (perfectly feasible to implement with the previous manpower concept just applying a proportional cost in manpower) because if the AA was not overbuffed this leads (as did on 0.8.0 release) to the situation in which low AA ships could never score kills and hence could not hamper the CV player. Good CV players were always capable of returning damaged planes to the deck and hence insta-repair them getting a higher hp output than what the preapartion time (and hence your hp generation prediction) would allow had any plane been destroyed. This leads to the need of overbuffing AA in order to force kills on squadrons and avoid this lack of continuity in the model (you know, integer numbers: the planes, vs continious: the hp generated / destroyed) Lack of actual player invovlement on the AA defense (seriously, the sector is lame beyond measure, boring and there is absolutely nothing to do vs the incoming planes once the sector is configured) leads to skill based attack vs pure RNG based defense: The best you can hope for is an average RNG defense good enough but not overpowered and with low variance so as not to be perceived as inconsistent. This will always be too strong vs bad CV players (which will not be able to learn because there is no defense player behavior invovlment, and hence get frustrated and sotp palying CVs) and too little vs good CVs (which will runaway becoming even better) and et volia, you have the receipt for player skill gap once again. the only counter is [edited]skill based AA defense vs skill based attack. In another post (Upcoming Fix To AA Mechanics) I have already suggested that the AA accuracy should decrease with the speed and turning radius of the ship leading to higher AA vs stationary targets and lower vs maneuvering ones: the CV player could hence estimate the AA power infront without the need of committing to a potentially impossible attack, as any BB can now assess on whether it is worth firing the slow reloading guns at a target properly angled or not. Moreover, that is the reasson whz Def AA or any other buff should not change the aplha damage of the flak as no other weapon in the game can change its aplha strike, this leads to overkill if the flak is already strong or unpredictability for the CV if the target pops Def AA as the CV player cannot assess the flak dmamage beforehand. IMHO (I know it is controversial) the air spotting and the fact that CVs could hunt isolated DDs was PERFECT, because it made solo yolo DD capping imposible and made capping a team effort and not a DD duel (as the old RTS CV was a CV duel). Moreover the great air spotting was also perfect because it rendered obsolete the obnoxious Concelment Expert meta which is dull boring and a must to go full stealth. I sincerely think that a good deal of problems with all this [edited] rework could be avoided if you [edited]treated planes as planes and gave altitude controls (in a discrete way like you did wit hthe submarines on the Halloween event) which could affect both the attack run preparation/accuracy and the spotting, you could easily link spotting (either class related or dispalcement, i.e. max hp, related) to altitude: Higher altitude less AA impact, maybe longer more innaccurate but faster planes on the attack run initiated from big height, and less intel gathered maybe DD spotting only from sea level or low level, cruisers from mid, and BBs even from max altitude. As I said at the beginning, the worst part is that all this just shows how far from ready the whole rework was... sad very sad. Oh btw, @MrConway send this special message to the Lead game developer: "Go "Nope" yourself"! it is a disgrace how you replied to Fara. If anyone does not know what this is about: PD: I hope the Indomitable sales bombs, so you feel in the wallet what a disaster all this crap has become...
  4. Ungrim_Baraz

    Radar Rework

    IMHO jsut adding 6 seconds 3D render delay is not enough of a change (let´s remember the radared ship does instantaneoulsy appear on minimap, which is all you need to start turning slow turrets on point). Also, current radar concept on flat arch soviet ships is rather ackward... I´d much rather see a geenral change having radar range equal to gun range, much shorter duration (specially for soviet radar) and blocked by solid cover to emphasize open waters action aimed at getting general fleet info instead of peek a boo behind rocks DD wrecking... The excuse of this negatively affecting some classes, i.e. USN CLs, is just that, an excuse, because these CLs are just bad for the whole game, way too strong vs DDs and CVs, too retarded and unskilled vs BBs just farming IFHE buffed HE spam behind rocks... Radar should be LoS dependent, despite this hampering USN CLs, because these are just a way too gimmicky and absurd concept by themselves in need of a better concept than rock huggers, which just exacerbate the preexisting radar concept problems... That. Having said that, having automatic chat messages announcing the use of consumables, and visual feedback for the teammate to understand who used what consumable when, are perfect additions to the game.
  5. Ungrim_Baraz

    Flooding Rework

    True, I do not enjoy that much DDs, among them I prefer the Grozovoi though and the Z52 Lately I am grinding the BB Legendaries, if it wasnt´for that I´d say I play as much cruiser as BB, but lately I am focussed on the grind, before it I´d say I was playing at a steady 40/40/20. Also, a reasson for not playing too mcuh DD is that I really think the Radar mechanic is utter trash, and its porposed fix comming on this patch is, IMHO way too short of a radar nerf, so I do not enjoy that much the traditional DD gameplay. eliastion, sorry, way too long, I am not gonna read it. In any case, I have no intention on becoming a post warrior, no time for posting thousands of posts. Did you put words in my mouth that I had not stated: yes. Had you read what I left on the very first post, being this just two short sentences in relation of me acknowledging this might not be the best possible solution?, no (or you decided to ignore it), hence my replay. And lastly, numbers do not lie. 18% is indeed similar to 20% (which btw as any weapon with similar dps but higehr alpha, having similar overal DoT but higher damage per tick is better, so 1 flooding is still more dangerous than one fire), I never said it was ridiculous or irrelevant, you said I said so, not being this true. No need to spend paragraph after paragraph. Do not put words on others´mouths. Otherwise prove me worng, that you had indeed quoted me, I doubt you can because I did never say it was irrelevant. Just read my comments before your original wall and tell me where I said that.
  6. Ungrim_Baraz

    Flooding Rework

    Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said it is inconsequential Also, learn to read: I said Iam not sure if it is the best possible mechanic, but that it is better than the current one. Also, check the numbers: 1 flood on BBs is 0.5% hp/s which is still more htan a fire, hence your statement (see, I do read and I quote exact words) of: Please, explain me how one flood of 40 secs and 0.5%/ sec is irrelevant compared to fires which last 60 sec and deal 0.3% hp/s. Higher DoT (hence DCP cooldown is more relevant vs flood than vs fire) and overal higher, slightly, total dmamge (20% vs 18%). That is the very defintion of comparable, not of irrelevant. Moreover, with the proposed changes the flood DoT can reach up to 1% with a well placed torpedo strike (bow and stern) vs the previous 0.667%. Which would be much more dangerous to withstand while DCP is in cooldown. You can debate all you want but, jsut remmeber Do not put words on others mouth, learn to read comments you critizise and check the numbers.
  7. Ungrim_Baraz

    Upcoming Fix To AA Mechanics

    Of course, but that is not a problem of the current F concept, sorry I meant F key concept. That is a problem of the general ship - AA interaction, and their relative power as you point out, not related to the fact that the players should care to maneuver out of danger their squadrons before recalling (the problem arises when there is no squadron left to be recalled...)
  8. Ungrim_Baraz

    Upcoming Fix To AA Mechanics

    Actually I think that is the intention, for the player to fly the squadron to somewhere save out of AA before pressing F. I personally have no problem with that. the former concept of having "safe heaven" as soon as you pressed F is what was bollocks... Having to actually fly to somewhere safe and then press F is, IMHO reasonable. There are bigger problems inthe whole CV rework like: Lack of CV hull control STUPID autoconsumables Compelte RNG based defense: hence lack of skill vs skill. The F key as before was idiotic, now requires for the player to fly somewhere safe, I do not have big problems with that.
  9. Ungrim_Baraz

    Flooding Rework

    Actually no, flooding was known to be a broken mechanic for long time.... this change was indeed requested
  10. Ungrim_Baraz

    Flooding Rework

    For IJN DDs it is a buff (,uch needed) as now people will not insta repair one flood. In general it is a small nerf to fire and specially to low HE damage but good fire starters: hybrid DDs. BEcause now people will be more free to repair fires not having to save it for that lethal flood. So, nerf for hybrid DDs, buff for IJN in the end... CVs are not part of the "buff or nerf" question because they have bigger things to worry about now with the CV re-rework.
  11. Ungrim_Baraz

    Upcoming Fix To AA Mechanics

    As I have always said, we need way more actual player control in the AA mechanic. Skill based attack cannot be balanced with RNG based defense.
  12. Ungrim_Baraz

    Upcoming Fix To AA Mechanics

    Sincerely @MrConway, I want to see WoWs and the CV rework be a total success. I think the action based system is the way to go, I even like (unlike so may others) the CV to DD interaction because it forces DDs to stick with the team and play as such making capping a team effort and not just a DD duel (I know and understand this is a controversial point) But, please... when will you acknowledge that it is impossible to balance a skill based attack vs a pure RNG based defense! AA needs to be heavily influenced by the defender player's actions (Ideally for me, player controlled AA, but I guess that is now impossible with the current CV concept). We need heavy influence on the AA on the defender's decisions and a way for the attacker to be able to read this in order to decide whether to proceed or bail out form the attack, as everything else on the game works... The sector thing just does not cut it: it is not involving enough, complex enough, and there is no information in the battlefield situation influenced by this upon which the CV can make any informed decision (before actually commiting) on how to, or whether to, proceed with the attack. Example: If you see an angled Yamato, you know your GK AP is not going to do much because the defender has made the correct decision and executed the maneuver to fend off your attack. This is completely lacking on the CV rework concept. As long as a skill based attack is countered by pure RNG (tuned for average and with low enough variance so as not to be perceived as inconsistent) good CV players will always snow ball to uncounterable (frustration on the defenders which is the whole player base) and bad (new) CV players will not be able to overcome the RNG wall (frustration on the new player => give up), and et voila, there you have once again the skill gap. Please please please, @Sub_Octavian, @MrConway, @Tuccy, I beg you, read this and discuss with developers: AA Accuracy should be heavily influenced by the ship's movement, why: because this gives the defender control over its AA performance and a way for the attacker to judge the situation and decide how to / whether to proceed (or what armament is best for a stationary / moving target in relation to its AA). The faster and harsher the movement, the worse the AA should be, because the harsher and faster the movement, the more difficult is to aim and properly lead the attack: Here is where you can balance numbers (e.g. reticle rate of aim) AND give players a skill based element on both ends which both players can read from the battlefield and upon which to decide: skill vs skill. That is the basic concept: The faster and harsher (tighter turn) the movement, the worse the AA. How to implement: as detailed or complex as you want. My proposal: Make accuracy a function of speed and turning radius, this can be made in a continuous way based on these physical variables (which leads to a consistent common general rule for all the ship, which is good) or in a discrete way based on the player inputs (easier to explain) for engine steam and rudder position. Example table of accuracy vs speed and rudder: Zero rudder 1/2 rudder full rudder backwards/static/1 fourth high high high half steam half half half three fourths low low very low full ahead low very low very low These qualifiers on the table can be converted into the ratio with which to interpolate form the ship's rated minimum accuracy (new value in port) to the ship's rated maximum accuracy (new value in port). Having two accuracy values gives you the opportunity to decide how relevant the mobility is going to be in the ship's AA defense without hindering its maximum top AA performance, i.e. If you want to give DDs maximum accuracy, they could also have the worst minimum accuracy to emphasize how relevant is for them the maneuverability and prevent random squadron deletions because you fly too close to an unspotted Harugumo at full speed moving around unaware of planes... The key point is giving the surface ship much more influence over its AA (via their mobility as that is the other main "enemy" for an accurate CV attack), and for the CV a way to immediately and from distance be able to assess the target's AA (as that GK in my example is able to asses that Yamato's armor position and decide in consequence) Also, the current concept of defensive AA buffing the alpha strike of the flak (multiplying it by 2 or 3) is complete bollocks, once again because it makes impossible for the CV to asses the situation beforehand, and because no other weapon system in the entire game can modify its alpha damage making hence flying through flak completely unpredictable (if flak is weak and then suddenly gets a +200% => 3 times stronger) or for the consumable irrelevant (if flak is not weak and then gets even stronger: complete overkill). With the concept I suggest you could easily just make the accuracy to be maximum while defensive AA is active irrelevant of the movement: simple predictable => room for informed decisions and hence skill vs skill.
  13. Ungrim_Baraz

    Flooding Rework

    Amidst all the recent drama, this flood rework is a blessing... It was long long overdue. I do not know if the new mechanic is the best for the game, but I do know it is much better for it than the current live one.
  14. Ungrim_Baraz

    Upcoming Fix To AA Mechanics

    Shokaku stock torpedo bombers, initiate attack run at 7 km, wait for ages for the reticle to close, launch attack at 5 km or so, wait ages to recover control, oh crap, target already at 4 km or so, turn tunr turn, before leaving the area the unavoidable base dps has taken 2 or 3 planes already and the rest is half done with.... hmmm.... enjoyable... I will never get tired of saying this: Need player controlled AA so that the CV vs surface ship is a true skill based interaction upon which both players can learn and improve => the opposite (pure RNG based defense) leads to snow ball skill gap between very good and very bad CV players Succesfully returning planes to the CV must go though a partial preparation time porpotional to the hp to recover, otherwise if AA is mild CV players can abuse returning damaged planes to soak up dmamge not form poor AA targets without consequences, the other extreme (current live version) no [edited]plane ever manages to return Also, with the current system it is easy to abuse the hp genneration per second on the CV, you need to have the three squadrons simulateneously not compeltely prepared on deck, in this way you gnenerate hp on three queues. The CV should have a manpower gnenration stat and each squadron a cost in manpower for preparation so that if only one squadron is not fully prepared on deck, all the manpower would be invested on that squadron, if the three squadrons are incompletel then the manpower would be split among the differnet squadrons under preparation... this would give you WG an easier more stable and predictable hp generation per second system than now, in which the CV´s hp generation greatly varies depending on the deck status of hte squadrons, and hence will be more diffuclt to couner (balance) with the hp destruction of hte opposition (AA)
  15. Ungrim_Baraz

    Upcoming Fix To AA Mechanics

    You have managed to put the tombstone on the CV rework, at least in what regards player perception of the CV rework, an of you as developers offering a half cooked solution without a clear concept in what regards the biggest part of the CV rework: the surface ship AA interaction with the CV as in a game you hope to get 1 CV out of 12 players vs 11 non CV, because you obviously have no idea about dimensioning the AA damage vs squadron hp or its split in base and flak. I was part of the CV pivate test (gave feedback, you ignored I guess, mainly: Succesfully returning damaged planes should go though a partial preparation time, otherwise easy to abuse this artificial hp regeneration as the CV behaves like the typical tower defense attacker, or otherwise over buff AA so #returning planes tends to zero so that CV player cannot abuse this concept flaw, we are now on second point, before wiht 0.8.0 we were on first point) and I really wanted to like the CV rework, but... this is crap. A stock Shokaku thrown into TX is far from an enjoyable experience when even DD flak from stealth can wipe out the squadron. Attacking with torpedoes at maximum range does not even ensure being able to recover the remainder for a second pass due to the inertia and lack of control after the first release, getting way too close to the target... this is just pitiful. In 0.8.0 CVs were OP af, in both 0.8.0.1 and 0.8.0.2 they are pitiful speccially as bottom tier. Seriously, @MrConway when will you accept that a skill based attack cannot be properly balanced with a pure RNG based defense mechanic??. There is no defense player involvment upon which a bad CV attacker could reflect and learn, and for a superb CV attacker, that tuned-for-average RNG defense will never be enough. The bloody CV rework needed player controlled AA guns to make it feel involving for everyone and at the same time a skill based duel. But no... you had to go for the pure RNG... The best you can aim for is an average AA which can meet the average CV player, and with low enough typical deviation or variance so as not to be perceived as unreliable or inconsistent (and hence frustrating)... this means good CV attackers will always be above the average RNG defense, be impossible to counter (frustration on defenders: the whole player base: alienation), and "snow ball" up the skill, but bad CV players will not be able to learn how to overcome that RNG wall as there is no human player opponent actions upon which to react and learn (and due to player base alienation and lack of skill development feedback: no big input of new CV players)... and there you have, once more, the skill gap. All this is a big sad joke and a HUGE missed opportunity... Revert the changes (just git-revert will do the trick, I am sure), go back to the drawing board and bloody add controlled AA so that the CV to surface ship interaction is properly skill based. Even better, offer a job to iChase, he´ll be much more useful for you as a companny than other CC signings for sure... If you have doubts ask him for "How I would have done the CV rework" BTW your last developer bulletin is pretentious, patronizing, and sad.
×