• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About eliastion

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile eliastion

Recent Profile Visitors

158 profile views
  1. The above is the equivalent of ARP ships - and you don't see me complaining about those being time-gated, since they are just a nice (or not so nice, depending who you ask) addition that does not affect your capabilities when you face other players. But this thread is not about ARP ships or commemorative flags, now is it? It's about captains that give the owner straight combat advantages over people who don't have them. Not to mention that your analogy had another weak point: WoWs is a PvP game. Life in general is not supposed to provide you with "competitive balance". Things like criminal law or PvP games are held to higher standards in this aspect.
  2. Because it's bad on a very fundamental level, before we even get to discussing the extent of an impact. Let me conjure an obligatory over-the-top example: imagine a criminal system where redheads get an extra day added to every year of jail they're sentenced to. So if a redhead was sentenced for 7 years, they stay in jail for another week because they're redheads. The result is tiny, it won't affect anyone much, but I'd still consider it pretty serious. Same here. The effect won't be very big, noticeable perhaps in competitive if anywhere... But it's just wrong on conceptual level.
  3. Chinese have their own WoWs with literally no national ships, all the countries are fictional (or rather - they're all letter designations rather than nations), with fictional flags. And the treatment of shipsdiffers - Japanese ones are re-named to strange things, for example, but less "sensitive" navies fare much better, with Błyskawica, for example, just having her name translated and still holding onto a wiki description that seems to be mentioning her current fate as a museum ship in Gdynia. Still, with no countries officially present in the game, the national pride aspect is, probably, greatly reduced... http://wows.kongzhong.com/wiki/ PS: The flags from the chinese WoWs look badass, from purely aesthetical standpoint they're often better than the real ones :D
  4. Well, you may ridicule this as much as you want, but special captains with boosted skills are somewhat questionable to begin with - them being impossible to obtain unless you happened to play in some pretty specific time window is a real issue. This issue might get watered down as more special captains appear (if they do) but for now it's pretty serious, even if the bonuses aren't game-breaking. And no, I did not miss on this one, Dunkirk is sitting in my port, waiting for british DDs, most likely (unless I decide to go back to grinding the cruisers seriously enough to spend elite XP to get him into shape).
  5. Yeah, 30k damage with torps in Akizuki? Ridiculous
  6. Oh, no 10 SCs and I didn't get any ships, fuk yuo Wargummink! No, seriously, these weren't some great rewards, but the signals you got are useful, you received 100 of the best premium camos in the game - and free XP, while nothing to write home about compared to some possible rewards, is always of use - even if you have all the ships maxed out and you don't wait for next freeXP premiums, you can use it as elite XP to improve/move around your captains. Supercontainers are supposed to be super compared to the normal containers, not some great rewards that make your account worth $1000000 on eBay. You are, indeed, spoiled, in the straight dictionary sense of the word. You're clearly getting too many, which led to you comparing them to the best possible spoils instead of treating them (as you should) as "oh, it's something nicer than the normal container". The only really questionable thing are the special upgrades (they got better than they were, but I still believe you should be getting a voucher you can exchange for the chosen one - the random ones aren't very adequate).
  7. While I don't really enjoy, in general, the idea of super-ship-specific tasks, let's face it: the tasks here generally reflect the kind of achievement you get. - Shinonome-only achievement is an achievement celebrating campaigns. If you didn't really care about campaigns (and didn't manage to get through the one that grants Shinonome), why should you get the achievement? - Death by baguette celebrates french cruiser line - if you didn't care about them enough to get a t5, then it's clearly not an achievement for you, right? It's similar for other achievements, with the possible exception of the Halloween one (since the ships chosen don't really have anything to do with the event the achievement references). In the end, I don't really understand the idea that everybody should be able to get every single achievement... Especially since you can still gather all the collectibles easily by doing just a couple achievements over and over again. All you don't get, in the end, is an inconsequential badge reflecting some level of dedication to something you're not dedicated to.
  8. No. Imagine the single best player meeting enemies randomly drawn from the playerbase in 1v1 matches - why (and how possibly, if he's THE best) would he on average meet equally skilled opponents? WoWs is not a 1v1 but it could be, the players are drawn to teams in some order: no matter what the order is, a player always has some (completely irrelevant) number, for example: third player put into green team. Compare him directly to the third player of the red team as his "equivalent". Now, back to the scenario with the single best player: it's impossible for him to ever get an equivalent of his skill level even once (since everybody else is worse), much less on average. Or, to put it another way. On average a fully random team should be average. But if you pick a player as a constant then NO TEAM HE'S ON IS RANDOM - it has one player locked-in. Imagine if skill was measured from 0 to 10, with 5 being the average value in the playerbase. So if you draw a (big) bunch of players from the playerbase, their average skill is going to be 5. Also, for the purpose of this example, to simplify things, imagine if the teams were only 2 people every time. Now, the average skill level in an average team would be 5 (although with much variation with such small teams). So if each match had teams "blue" and "yellow" with random players drawn from among the playerbase to fill each spot, the win% of team blue would be - in the long run - very close to 50%. The same for team yellow. Because blue 1 average skill = 5 blue 2 average skill = 5 average sum of blue skill = 10 yellow 1 average skill = 5 yellow 2 average skill = 5 average sum of red skill = 10 But now imagine teams "green" and "red", situation similar to the above... but only g2, r1 and r3 are randomly drawn from the playerbase, the green 1 spot is reserved for a particular player of great skill (10). What do we get then? green 1 average skill = 10 (it's that player) green 2 average skill = 5 (it's a random player) average sum of green skill = 15 red 1 average skill = 5 (it's a random player) red 2 average skill = 5 (it's a random player) average sum of red skill = 10
  9. From the very beginning it was announced to start 15 (tomorrow, that is) not 14 (the day of the patch). EDIT: And it seems I was wrong, it was changed to 15 after all (judging by the post below) rather than being that from the beginning.
  10. Seriously, to know how it works a player would need to a) always go through cost breakdown and compare it between battles to optimize credit gains b) read through patchnotes (and if a player in question joined recently: read through OLD patchnotes) c) frequent the forums d) see someone mentioning the thing in-chat (probably prompting him to try a or c to check) It's ABSOLUTELY NATURAL for most players to be unaware of a detail of economy (not the part of the game people generally find most thrilling, I'd say) that's not explained anywhere a typical player might stumble upon. In fact, I'd be very surprised if (the way things are handled by WG in this aspect) the situation were any different. The answer to "what kind of people" is just "the ordinary ones that want to play the game". To go through the numbers enough to notice the thing OR to visit the forums with some frequency takes if not special dedication then at least a special mindset that's just not shared by most players. And patch notes are easy to miss, especially if you happen to not be actively playing in that particular week when this one super-important change takes place.
  11. 1000 points are perfectly ok. The very idea of having points is to set the objective for both teams to pursue. But such an objective needs to be relevant. If it was extremely rare to lose by points (or by being brought down to 0), the initiative to actually fight for the caps would disappear! As it is now, controlling more caps than the enemy actually does get you noticeably closer to victory. The same the other way: if you're behind in caps, you're in a hurry. Yes, the winners are going to lose some juicy hp on slaughtering the already-defeated enemy teams to the last ship, but that's not really a bad thing (after all, the damage after the game got decided lacks actual value to the team but is rewarded all the same because the game can't tell the difference). Yes, some matches can be frustratingly short. But still, that's the same system that makes Domination revolve around pushing/defending caps to a reasonable extent. Not to mention that it's the same system that actually makes it possible to have more undecided-until-very-end battles where one team played the objective and got lots of points but is significantly below in ships, making for some interesting tactical choices where each team has their priorities that go beyond "shoot enemies until all dead". It's not a coincidence that the Standard Battle mode, where points are less important, isn't really that well liked (it has its fans and that's why it's still around and going to stay, but it's not very popular). With point pools altered to reduce the number of fast battles, EVERYTHING would become like Standard Battle - only without even the insta-win/defeat base to try and cap/defend...
  12. 0-12, paradoxicallly, doesn't mean a complete landslide. To the contrary: a complete landslide ends MUCH sooner. To get to 0-12 you need the losing team to accumulate points (so they need to have some bases) AND take quite some time dying (so that they accumulate enough points to not drop to 0 while losing 12 ships without killing anything in the process).
  13. Only the complaints were often coming from really good players who used and abused the mechanics the best. Unlike the stealth firing "problem" (that was mostly seen by potatoes), smoke meta was seen as something negative almost universally. It doesn't mean that everyone wanted the change (big ships concealed in DDs' smoke is teamplay, after all, and for many teamplay being effective is more important than the loss of dynamics when everyone sits invisible) but even for the "leave smoke alone" guys the smoke meta was a price to pay for stronger teamplay aspect. They considered it an acceptable price to pay rather than something in nice in and of itself. At least that's the general feeling I got from the discussions about smokes and high level Ranked.
  14. <tripple post due to some technical issues>
  15. <tripple post due to some technical issues>