Jump to content

AkosJaccik

Players
  • Content count

    876
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    11126
  • Clan

    [MPT]

About AkosJaccik

  • Rank
    Officer Cadet
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Budapest

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

1,022 profile views
  1. Leaked CV Rework CO-OP Game Video

    Putting aside the whole "professional" side of spotting, alpha, map control etc., this looks, by God, repetitive and annoying. For both participants, honestly. Then again, this is jus an impression based on a limited, early footage, I'm well aware of that.
  2. ...nothing? Nobody? Alright, I'll jump on it. But joke aside, if something, this IS an indicator for just how much our game changed over the years. Arguably not necessarily always for the better, and maybe not while driven by a clear vision. ...but changed. However, I'm still salty about the thought that I might be able to drive a fokken' sentoku-class submarine sooner than finally take out the Tone for a spin.
  3. Hello, yes? Wargaming? I'd like to subscribe for the memes, yes.
  4. Carrier APM

    Just for hilarity, someone should check apm for other classes too. I reckon with sufficient situational awareness, regularly "right-clicking" out of salvoes, maneuvering etc. some numbers would be surprising compared to the ones above.
  5. Torpedos and Team damage

    Sure! I do too, and got pink a few times as well (hell, once a stray shell of mine citadeled a friendly cruser). It happens. Sometimes one calculates the risks and screws up. But friendly fire, as far as I am concerned, is a legitimate element of team games. In fact, this way everyone could take (if they would take) responsibility without any practical skill. In this sense, the "get out of jail for free card" would, in my subjective opinion, dumb down the game. And it might even screw over the torp guy, because if you shoot carelessly, blow up your torps, then hello cooldown, compared to just holding your fire.
  6. Torpedos and Team damage

    Point is I'd like to stress, while it is strictly speaking offtopic... There is no such thing as "but he could have evaded my torps by simply turning". At this point in my 'career" (stop laughing) I never evade friendly torps. Don't get me wrong, I never turn into them deliberately, because what's the point, but I don't evade them either. Why - it's rather simple. When I am doing a maneuver, it's usually for a reason (also don't laugh). If I have to evade "friendly" torps, I might show broadside, might get into a part of map that is highly disadvantageous, or just simply would wase a lot of my, and in turn, the team's time. Worst case scenario, the turn would get me killed, and the torp guy would never realize this. And at this point, I'd rather make a point by taking one or two torps than to get f*cked over all the same but without the game's exact and harsh feedback about it. So, I get hit, because evading is more often than not almost as bad, but without the penalty for the perpetrator. By this logic, this is why there is no such thing "but the torp guy did everything he could to avoid hitting a friendly", IF he still hits someone. This is the whole "bla-bla" point of "your torps, your responsibility". Because actually hitting with the torps is not required to screw a friendly up, should it force him to evade.
  7. Torpedos and Team damage

    While it isn't necessarily a bad idea, probably and simply too much is standing against it. - It isn't really historical at this point. I know, arcade game, but still - this is an argument. - If you can't select exactly which torp to self-destruct, then would you negate a five-torp spread for a single "friendly" hit? If you do, you might lose a deva. strike, or even the game. If you don't, you might sink an allied ship and lose the game. - If you can select exactly which torp to self-destruct, then that would still take effort, attention and still would not necessarily be accident-proof. Hell, it might be even worse. But the main problem would be - WG could not be arsed to implement far more simple gameplay elements because "that would be too complicated". So this would require a fair amount of work to implement, would still not be accident-proof and it would be complicated. ...compared to just not pressing the trigger if you don't have a clear shot. It is true tho'.
  8. There kind of is, although not exactly. Check out Naval Action, but do keep in mind it's early access since awhile, so even if you like what you are seeing, do not buy it in haste.
  9. PINK DUE TO BLIND BATS

    Sure, absolutely. And ~92,3% of that was my own fault - those I embrace -, 7,7% was the stupidity of the automated system and a series of unfortunate events - those I just shrug off, as adults do(?). Other thing is, while it sure is reassuring that you are looking for teamplay, I'd recommend first and foremost improving your own knowledge and experience. Yes, I know, "you don't care about stats", and neither do I say that "go back when you have 60% WR", it's just first learn which end of the sword to grab before trying to lead an army. First point of teamplay is being useful for the team, and statistically speaking, those "solo critters" are usually more useful on their own.
  10. Preserving RTS CV - Action CV in parallel?

    The only thing I could see (and want, too) is the old CVs getting a switch in Training Room for the "classic" rts-mode, but WG probably won't bother with this either.
  11. Why do they flee in Cherry Blossom??

    The airfields also have J7W Shidens. The Zaos might also back off simply because of what Japan did in a way: They are trying to spare them until the Kantai Kessen.
  12. CV Rework Discussion

    My concerns also. Sure, getting deleted and winning a trip to the port was annoying, but so is eating a multi-citadel. What, on the other hand, my most "loved" experience is, having enemy aviation loitering over my destroyer that's completely reliant on stealth. (Which by the way I would have zero problem if cross-class balance would work in all other cases too.) Now it seems to be the same with the difference of being rocketed in every twenty seconds for two fires. Granted, I'm not an optimist, and the new system has a potential to be engaging, fitting and overall good, but so far I see CVs losing most of their key traits, while "air cancer" kind of remaining still.
  13. CV Rework Discussion

    On the other hand, so far you did what a carrier does - building up strikes, handling tactical situations, et cetera. Now, you will do what esentially a single plane does: lobbing bombs. Again - I can see why this might appeal to people. It's just that this isn't really controlling a carrier anymore.
  14. CV Rework Discussion

    Plus where to "conjure" fighters? Above own team - people are not (supposed to be...) static, so they might wander out of the fighter cover "zone". Above caps? Wasted "summon", if noone is contesting it. Above own strike planes irritating the hell out of a single guy with constant DoT-stacking? ...but why? For the enemy CV to attack, he might need to go there with the strike planes to summon their own if sending fighters isn't an option, and the rear gunners might be able to deal with floatplanes, when available. And in the end, you, as a CV, will still be cussed at for not protecting the entire fleet with a single "summon" of fighters. Note, I'm just thinking out loud without the necessary amount info at hand, but frankly, as things stand now, maybe just ditching the fighter plane consumabe altogether and just go with the in for a penny in for a pound - mentality would be the prudent way. And yes, I'm still lamenting over the loss of multitask ability. I understand it, but it just feels so wrong.
  15. CV Rework Discussion

    Makes "sense", although the "summonig fighters" part is still - arcade game, sure, but - crowbaring my face into all kinds of shapes.
×