Jump to content

_Keepo_

Players
  • Content Сount

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7607
  • Clan

    [-RT-]

About _Keepo_

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia
    [-RT-]

Recent Profile Visitors

252 profile views
  1. _Keepo_

    PTS - Changes to CV

    With the greatest of respect, feedback from someone who knows what they're doing (as Maaseru clearly does) should carry more weight than feedback from some people who merely play PTS for the sake of playing it. Indeed, another poster on this thread @eliastion has voiced similar concerns above also.
  2. _Keepo_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    i.e. had you (as in WG) played your own game....
  3. _Keepo_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    As I've already stated, I read the entire post. How long was this bug known about in WG? why, if it was known about was a dialogue not opened up with your players to check their opinion before unilaterally deciding to "fix it? Why, if you had time to "fix" it could that same time not be applied to actually coding it correctly, so it becomes a feature, rather than a bug? You've already stated that 0.8.3 is already being worked on, are we to take from that, that it will be 0.8.4 before this is fixed? As for the CV rework being in development for a year, internally that may be so, however, you still intend to use the general player base as guinea pigs, testing it and "rebalancing" it for a further few patches, right? I understand that as community manager you have a hard and sometimes thankless task, but quite often WG are putting the cart before the horse and causing you more difficulty than necessary. In future, before you try to fix a "bug" maybe open a dialogue with your players and check if it's something the players want or not? That may save you unnecessary grief A lot of players had resigned themselves to not playing randoms until this cv rework was died down, now you've put the kibosh on us playing ranked also... tremendous
  4. _Keepo_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    I read the entire post, my point still stands
  5. _Keepo_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    It is bad news, the community spoke, and told you in no uncertain terms that this "fix" was unwanted. It will take a number of patches for this change to be implemented as your player base want apparently, and yet you can foist a half-baked CV rework on us in double quick time, I guess it's all about priorities eh? And it's pretty obvious that a change that over 90% of your players want is pretty low down the totem pole as far as WG are concerned. A word of advice: listen to your community, we've seen what happened to the amount of players in WOT when WG pushed through unwanted changes, and the difference between WOT and wows is wows does not have the player base to suffer a large cut in active players and remain viable, like WOT did
  6. _Keepo_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    I'm perfectly calm, fix your crap and I'll be calmer ;-)
  7. _Keepo_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    *edited* Forgive me for being salty, but I don't think by your posts in this thread that you understand the disillusionment a lot of the player base have with the direction this game has been going in the last year, this unneeded and unwanted "bug fix" is just another clue as to how out of touch WG are with the player base, and frivolous posts such as yours do nothing to help the view players currently have of WG There's a time and a place for frivolity, this was not it
  8. _Keepo_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    Are you deliberately trying to inflame the situation, or just doing it unknown to yourself?
  9. _Keepo_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    Wow, thoughtful and concise input into the debate there, thanks for your input, you must need a rest after that behemoth of a post
  10. _Keepo_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    As usual @MrConway the one time WG got it right in the last year it was "unintended" Bringing out a dev blog post AFTER making a unilateral decision, without consulting your player base smacks of closing the stable door after the horse has already bolted... As for things being "hectic" it is your decision to rush out a half baked "rework" _aka a dumbing down_ that has you so "hectic" in the first place! Honestly, in the past year, WG decisions have gone from unfortunate, to questionable, to ridiculous, and now finally to downright harmful to the longevity of your game... listen to the community on this one, change this back,
  11. _Keepo_

    Azuma 're-balanced' to Tier 9

    Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really that dense? I'm pretty well aware of each ship's strength and counter I'll say it one more time, slowly this time, especially for you: I wanted a ship that would add a different flavour to competitive play, not just a copy paste zao, not a Stalin, not a DM, a DIFFERENT ship, with different inherent strengths and weaknesses
  12. _Keepo_

    Azuma 're-balanced' to Tier 9

    Yea look, I don't know how this became a Stalin thread, this was about Azuma, a battle cruiser with a different role to Stalin, which is what I wanted That was my point though, Azuma had flaws at T10, she'd have been interesting to play, and to try get the best from
  13. _Keepo_

    Azuma 're-balanced' to Tier 9

    "Instead of repeat the same Stalingrad hate posts" You mentioned me right there... memory of a goldfish perhaps?
  14. _Keepo_

    Azuma 're-balanced' to Tier 9

    Ok, let's put it this way, 1 season hindys were the cruiser of choice, until people ran zao to counter them Then zaos were the cruiser of choice, until people came up with a counter to them, running a ship that counters another is not a new thing you know? Ever since competitive started, there has been shifts in the meta to counter the existing meta
  15. _Keepo_

    Azuma 're-balanced' to Tier 9

    No, I want a battle cruiser at a competitive (tier 10) tier, that can add to the flavour of the ship pool, offering something slightly different in essence, unlike 99% of people here, I don't fixate on 1 ship (Stalin) Let me put it another away, I've ground practically every tier 10 in the game right now, I believe that for a game to be viable long term, it needs to add interesting end game content (ships, game modes,etc) to hold people's interest, Azuma was, for me, the first ship that had gotten me excited in a long time, with the last one being the Henri I believe that with a mix of 25mm and 30mm armour the Azuma could have rewarded good play and punished bad play equally, which should surely be the goal of any game design? Don't get me wrong, Azuma at t9 would still be interesting, however it would have no role in competitive play, seeing as that is in the main, a tier 10 domain Dude, i own the Stalin, i played it practically the entire season just gone, i know its strengths and weaknesses intimately
×