RamirezKurita

Players
  • Content count

    1,016
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1940

1 Follower

About RamirezKurita

Recent Profile Visitors

152 profile views
  1. That doesn't solve the issue unless they also remove them from the game itself, it simply limits how many players can proceed to wreck the balance of the game. Solutions should always take precedence over damage mitigation, and simply damage mitigation should never be the end of an issue. If they won't ever nerf premiums, it leaves WG with two real choices to maintain a healthy game: They can buff up every single silver ship to match the premiums and accept that power creep is a necessary price to pay for overall balance, or they can introduce global changes that are specifically targeted to bring down the premiums.
  2. Simple, it doesn't have anywhere near battleship firepower (maybe comparable to the Scharnhorst at T7, but definitely not T10 material), less armour than battleships and will likely suffer from a combination of battleship concealment, battleship rudders and cruiser hull plating. This will make it a prime target for battleships, even more so than regular cruisers, unless the player can angle properly to make the most of the Stalingrad's 180mm belt. If they aren't careful, they will basically have a ship with the collective weaknesses of both battleships and cruisers and only a decent health pool to make up for it.
  3. It's true that relatively few F2P games operate on that kind of model, most of them are short-term cash grabs that barely even hide how they feel about their players (mobile games are particularly abusive in this manner) however those that do tend to be rake in crazy amounts of money and remain massive money spinners for their developers for year after year. You just have to look at the continuing business from games like Team Fortress 2 and DotA2, which even years after release still maintain massive playerbases that do not hesitate to shovel vast amounts of money into the game. From a company's perspective, there's two possible routes. They can either try to balance the books month-per-month to try to keep the stockholders happy, even at the cost of running their brand and products into the ground simply to stay out of the red before moving onto the next thing; or alternatively they can put things down as investments and try to build a stable long-term ecosystem, whether that ecosystem is by the pure strength of the brand or by the quality of the individual game. Hearthstone isn't really a very good example here, as it is a good example of a F2P game that isn't abusive - players can keep playing the game to unlock new cards, there's no content locked behind paywalls and all the new cards are there to add to the gameplay, not as thinly veiled cash grabs. Sure, you can reduce the grind on Hearthstone by spending money, but it's not too hard to get most of the stuff in the game just by playing on a semi-regular basis, the game draws players in large numbers and makes them want to support the game rather than forcing them to support the game to remain competitive. Not to mention how Hearthstone is basically just a giant playable advert for World of Warcraft, so blizzard would probably still continue development even if the game never directly generated profit. I agree that strong brand presence is important, however milking your players rather than working with them for mutual benefit is a good way of destroying that brand. In it's current form, I wouldn't recommend WoWS or even WoT to people and I have little hope for the new Master of Orion that WG are working on; compare this with developers that have strong brand presences, such as Firaxis entertainment that silenced pretty much all critics when they announced they were releasing the X-Com reboot - they had never developed a game like that but the general opinion among the fans of the original X-Com was that Firaxis could basically do no evil as their brand was so strong. You can see this clearly on a lot of kickstarters, where simply having a famous individual on the development team (even as a stretch goal!) or a renowned development team can result in massive amounts of funding. However, even having a good name in the past can't keep fans forever, eventually abusing your own customers will drive them away even if it takes years - and they will probably be recommending all their friends to avoid the company too. There's obviously a balance to be struck, giving players everything they could ever want for free means they'll never spend money on the game, but equally if you metaphorically slap your players in the face with an inflatable "I win" button that costs more than an average AAA title then it stifles long term growth even if it balances the books in the short term.
  4. Maximising profit in the short term. Sacrificing the game's growth and literally selling out what limited PR the developers have to earn some quick cash. There's no surprise that whenever WG announce new premiums at the expense of fixing actual problems the doomsayers start harping on about the demise of the game and how they are just milking it in its dying moments - every new premium released while there's existing problems in the game is simply WG saying "we don't care about the game, but would like your money". The big money in the long run is to build a massive, dedicated fanbase that spreads like wildfire, followed by adding in cosmetic purchases, out-of game extras and merchandise that do no detract from the quality of the game but still allow players to show their pride in their favourites and support the developers.
  5. Not can't fix, the real issue is won't fix.
  6. Literally the only time I have ever seen a reference to the IJN Musashi getting the full complement of 127mm guns is in that section of Wikipedia, every other reference I've ever seen states that they didn't have sufficient 127mm guns available on hand and so the Yamato got priority for them. Even earlier in that same article on Wikipedia it states that "While the ship was under repair in April 1944, the two 15.5 cm wing turrets were removed and replaced with three triple 25 mm gun mounts each" rather than replacing them with the intended 127mm guns.
  7. They were sister ships that were practically identical as launched, with the only notable difference in that the Musashi had 10mm thinner belt armour but slightly thicker armour on the secondary battery turrets and she had better command facilities to operate as a flagship. Over the course of the war, the Yamato did survive longer and so received more modernisations though, Musashi never got the extra 6x2 127mm mounts to replace her 155mm wing turrets and didn't end up with as many 25mm guns. The image shown looks to basically be the Yamato-class as launched, so basically having almost no appreciable AA power (not that it matters at the moment considering how rare carriers are) but keeping the extra wing turrets. Granted, the 155mm triples are pretty useless in the game as their main targets have no citadels, so even on secondary battery performance the Musashi won't perform as well unless they give her a longer secondary battery range to represent her greater proportion on high-calibre secondaries.
  8. Actually, as far as I am aware, the term "fast battleship" got applied to them because one of their interwar modernisations left them too slow to really be called battlecruisers. It wasn't them being upgraded into battleships because of armour, it was downgrading them from battlecruisers because they were slow.
  9. We do have several battlecruisers in the game already, however they are fully fledged capital ships while the Stalingrads were to be relatively weak ships more in line with large cruisers of the period in that they are intermediate between the true capital ships and regular heavy cruisers. The Stalingrads wouldn't even stand a chance against their "predecessor", the Kronshtadt class, further giving reason that they shouldn't be classed as a true capital ship. In fact, it's almost perfectly comparable to the USN's CA2-D design in terms of specs and it would shape up nicely against the later IJN B-65 revisions, neither of which were ever referred to as battlecruisers as both nations developed special terminology for them (large cruiser from the USN and super-heavy cruiser in the IJN). If they wanted a soviet battlecruiser, the Kronshtadt class would fit the bill much more accurately, being actually comparable to capital ships of the period.
  10. You mean the the super HE, the submerged citadels, super concealment and the super heal? They could remove 2 or 3 or those things and the RN ships will still have their special traits.
  11. Actually, most of the battleships/battlecruisers up to about T6 are WWI era (the Hood at T7 was actually launched during the last year of WWI but wasn't commissioned until a couple of years later), it's only the other classes that flip into the interwar designs around T4.
  12. I'd much prefer to pay credits to rent the premiums I actually want to try at a time when I want to try them, rather than every now and then have a rental offer forced down my throat at WG's discretion (which will likely be a ship I don't care about and/or during a time when I can't really play much). Even better, it would remove the P2W aspects of the team battles and replace them with a much more workable grind, as anyone could spend 5 million credits a pop to rent an Atago or a MK for a weekend to play T8 team battles or for whatever the ranked tiers are. For well established players, I'm sure many of them would be more than willing to shove 30 or so million credits into a ranked season if there's certain ships that are overperforming.
  13. You say it is vulnerable, but the Saipan has crazily fast planes so it will only ever get it's fighters locked if it chooses to or if the player screws up big time. It's not like a poor Hiryuu that has to play very carefully to ensure they don't get locked into fights they can't win, a Saipan can dance around enemy fighters with ease. The higher tier fighters also give it a reasonable fighting chance unless outnumbered significantly in terms of squadrons, particularly as the Saipan's speed lets it choose the engagement location (so it can force fights over allied ships for AA support while also never being locked above enemy ships). On top of the ability to determine a fight location and effectively only get locked in dogfights by choice, it shouldn't then also have the extra safety net of free disengages.
  14. To be fair, strafing out of combat is mostly just an emergency crutch in the first place that just adds complexity without any real depth to the game play, players should be punished for making mistakes rather than using 1337 APM skills to practically ignore their own mistakes by sacrificing a single fighter. As pointed out, this is a particular problem for the Saipan even without the free escapes as it means that even if the Saipan gets outplayed significantly to the point where it's fighters get pinned down, it can still escape without being punished (and no, losing a single fighter I wouldn't count as being "punished").
  15. That's the kind of vague answer that generally means "we are aware of it, but in our current long-term roadmap we have no plans to deal with it". In the absence of further information, it's not unreasonable to be pessimistic on these things unless the company in question has a track record of solving issues quickly. "We are working on it" can mean anything from the entire team working overtime, making it a full priority and sacrificing development of other aspects of the game all the way through to simply having left a post-it note on the part-time intern's desk.