Jump to content

tadadaaaa

Players
  • Content Сount

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    315

About tadadaaaa

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia
  1. tadadaaaa

    PC Gamer: WoWs is 'expensive and exploitative'

    Almost true, jinx. They do care, up to a point, but they do it in a weird twisted way. Read in diagonal the posts between this response and your post and you'll see what I mean: tireless "volunteers" explaining the developers point of view time and again, and again, with just the right key words repeated compulsively and quantifiable. Do I have any proof of those sockpupets being full time astroturfers? No. Did some display the same behavior on all WG's games forums? Hell yes. With screeching teeth they repeat the developer only point of view (sometimes in direct contradiction with their customer interest) like a broken mill. You would think they are so full of compassion for the developer they probably give free BJs to the employees in WG's office toilet, in their free time. IMO it's a geographical / historical attitude coming from that part of the world. They are incapable of dealing with PR any other way in that barely past-Stalinist russian gubernya twisted world.
  2. tadadaaaa

    PC Gamer: WoWs is 'expensive and exploitative'

    You know what F2P game I enjoyed since that "not even NavyField level" thread? One that has zero eye candy, zero graphics, zero BS, just numbers (what WoWs gets down to in the long run too). Swarm simulator, it's just an example for ya all. Guess what, despite bing F2P it's actually free therefore not expensive and exploitative in any conceivable way. Guess what more, it's enjoyable. Unlike WoWs who frustrates you into upgrading and spending time and money, that other F2P does nothing of sorts, despite being free. WG is not in business of making enjoyable stuff, it's in the business of getting those whale players, 20% of all players who spend more than the rest combined and f**k them out of as much money as possible. The rest of the players eventually pay the flat "premium" fee and fatten the general cash flow. The ones who don't pay any money are just sucking d**k grind till eternity and no one gives a f* if they enjoy the game or not. WoWs is expensive and exploitative, unlike many other F2P games out there.
  3. tadadaaaa

    not even NavyField level - game review

    Bulkhead was some sort of "structural rigidity and resilience". Overall built and rigidisation quality of the ship, with the normal consequences you mentioned. More armor schemes happened on same ships in rebuilds, so yes, it's accurate to a point. Just like some people decided how to revamp a ship you have that options too, to make your own best version, according to your play style and battle environment. Every ship becomes a fan of possible things. Also ships become less predictable, the same BB can turn out to be a speed freak or an armorless very heavy hitting paper boat. Variety, adaptation, surprise, only good things spring in mind. Yes, some configurations come out as best, for each ship, but at least two, and even those can suffer slight modifications to suite one's play mode. Sounds soooo good to have such options. No historicaly accurate? Passing over the thickness of such a remark in a hide and seek battleships game, ships could be and were modified. Not the same settings, well, they didn't have to fight your battles, in WoWs. Edit: no idea why WoT didn't have this.
  4. tadadaaaa

    not even NavyField level - game review

    Although I wouldn't formulate the bullet-points this way I'm all for the bottom conclusion: we all wanted a mix between Navyfield and Battlestations:Midway/Pacific. The bullet points seem somehow an inside-out list, someone from inside game dev team trying to formulate the expectations in such a way that they will be easily meat and they describe some of the work already done. As a customer I would be more straight trough, irrelevant to how the game is right now: some eye candy. "Some" is very appropriate, a little. Just a notch. We match in this request. we all wanted a naval game with respectable and responsible development and player retention. The respect earned by being responsible would be there anyway. Player retention, although paramount, sounds a bit too much like what a music producer would say about the justin bieber product. It's an acceptable way to describe a dumbed-down product for the masses. It announces nothing good. we all wanted a naval game where skill and options influence game experience, like the ship options and handling did in NF. The same kind of options and handling will do, even better if more ergonomically implemented. Ergonomy is not the first request, interesting way to play is. Ergonomy is only an optional, welcomed, bonus. not repetitive. You can achieve that only with procedurally generated maps. Every static map will develop a "best way to deal with it", with best chances of success for each type of ship, and that will be repeated and everything will become boring, just like the NF battles. The first clans will test, discuss and patent the best actions for each, game itself will develop this. Same start conditions results in same process, just like in physics and economics. the randomness seed possible now in start conditions is utterly negligible, even the ships are exactly what their name sais they should, no unexpected armor whores, no unexpected torpedo whores, no unexpected speed whores, nothing is unexpected. All is predictable. The players not knowing yet to maximize their chances is the only thing generating randomness now, but they will learn and then what? WoT suffered of this too. We can't have it all but we want it all. We should get as much as possible. We can't have it all now, well, that's a fact and there's nothing to do about it. The WoWs team does listen? Good news, because they should (in moderation, of course). Lots of lessons from WoWp fail should not go forgotten. And IF stuff we discussed about here does become reality I'll be very glad to come back and play, me and many others, and then the devs and WG will be all very glad too and we'll all live happily ever after.
  5. tadadaaaa

    not even NavyField level - game review

    Some other people believe that aspirin could cure cancer. edit: so much for a worthy discussion. Can't be bothered to point to the entire thread again, then explain what is objectiveness, a true or false argument and then reiterate the entire subject for a half-articulated stubborn shill. I'd rather read what 3Form has to say a post below, a voice of common sense (+1 for him, please).
  6. tadadaaaa

    not even NavyField level - game review

    If looks is all you ask from a game you're pretty messed up playing WoWs, dude. Go play C.A.R.S. or something, something that really looks good. WoWs graphics are, on their turn, crap, compared with what 2015 has to offer. That wasn't even an issue. Game experience, overall, was. Nothing that would interest an ADD ridden fella Read. And the following few posts after that. What is being listed and detailed there is all that WoWs doesn't have and is having nothing else in exchange to fill the boring emptiness.
  7. tadadaaaa

    not even NavyField level - game review

    Read the thread before posting like that, would you? Especially page 3 posts by repsrb and ecotech (both very enlightening, despite slight disagreement between them). And look at other NF videos. And try not to be a noob and then you'll be golden. repsrb, thank you for your time to describe all that content and granular nuances NF had. I even forgot about the golden angle implications in AA fire. Yes, despite truly ancient engine NF devs were able to achieve that much from those stoneage sprites. And now what, WoWs, with 2015 code and hardware at hand gives us fist person shooter in slow motion...with ships. That's all WoWs is.
  8. tadadaaaa

    not even NavyField level - game review

    Again, how many days till release, exactly?
  9. tadadaaaa

    not even NavyField level - game review

    Those of you that never played NF should read this post: True, Ecotech. Your recollection of NF is so accurate it instantly reminds me why I'll never play it again (if servers still exist anyway). The repeat of that battle process has an end for any sane man. But then what? Just look how concise Hibasnev describes WoWs, compared to that NF story, and with WoT as extra term of comparison: " [WoWs] the game's pretty much about practicing leading targets and anticipating ship paths. this may be enjoyable for a while (or for players with low standards who prefer simple pew-pew games with no thought behind it) but in it's current state it will be short-lived compared to WoT" It's a short description telling you there's not much going on in WoWs. Not even as much as in NF. I'm not saying it with any grudge or even a whiff of bitterness, it's an honest observation and it's plane to see. I'm glad for wargaming for taking people like you to test and return proper feed-back, but that's not an excuse to not see the obvious, ok?
  10. tadadaaaa

    not even NavyField level - game review

    you forget the SS* and the torp apocalipse IJN CAs *that's a submarine, for those of you that played only EU servers.
  11. tadadaaaa

    not even NavyField level - game review

    Historynerd, past experience is not base to a bias, it's base to a perspective and objective view of present. Someone with your nickname should have pointed that, I think, not the opposite. Also, past experience in gaming tells me that hide-behind-a-corner-with-a-battleship is rather more Counter Strike in slow motion than a navy game. The issues I pointed to in the OP are subjective, as far as any game review is. It's not math. But that's why past experience matters, to be able to compare soft notions and fuzzy sensations in order to conclude a more objective image than otherwise. Saying that it's all subjective and dismiss it, with no arguments whatsoever, is just a stretch toward willing ignorance, nothing more. Yep, those 10-20 minutes lost to start a battle got to me too. Probably one of the reasons I stopped playing it, I don't recall exactly. The instant MM of WoT seemed like light speed afterwards. Yep. But starting to play faster is not everything, if the actual play is not fun enough. Was in WoT, at that time. Not so much in WoWs.
  12. tadadaaaa

    not even NavyField level - game review

    I played NF 5 years and I had enough. I installed WoWs hoping that, 10 years after, with 3D engines and hugely more powerful hardware on the market someone was able to make a effin better game. I was wrong.
  13. tadadaaaa

    not even NavyField level - game review

    Because I played both and I tell you that NF was outright thrilling and exhilarating fun to play, compaired to WoWs. By a long shot better. Because in NF you had to do things, things that mattered, in order to hit and win. Actually it took a month to master the game, and many were polishing skill after years. WoWs is point and click, badger in a hole style. Gets boring very fast. That was actually the best part of the game, in my opinion and everyone's elses on that game. Took skill, and skill prevailed. Very important in a MMO. Why not? Two games that have maritime warfare as subject. Each has it's own technical approach, each has different mechanics to control in order to prevail, at the end of the story you have to draw a line and see which is a better game and which is better addressing it's subject, the navy battles of WW2. Kind of sad to see WoWs, 10 years after NF release, not being able to at least compare, if not overtake, NF. Kind of sad to see the developers who played so much NF and created WoT after it, not being able to hold the line high enough. Also surprising.
  14. This is a brief game review of WoWs. General gameplay and POV If any of you remembers the mother of all MMO navy games, Navy Filed, was top down isometric 2D. As strange as it might sound, that created opportunity for interesting gameplay more than WoWs 3D over the head POV point and click action. You had to master your fire lines, their point of intersection, the range, your speed, target speed and time of flight of the shells to be able to hit. Same for AA fire, which was manual overall. (I actually installed NF, 10 years ago, to play with AA guns) All those thrills are nowhere to be found in WoWs. Yes, some speeds have to be taken into account when firing. Sad shadow of navy play. Instead you can play hide and seek battleship behind a corner style. It's not arcade, it's ridiculous. And the guts to say (in the 0.4.1 update video) that one map or another is styled after one or another coastline WW2 action is also ridiculous. It's offending to one's intellect to have navy battles this way. Technicalities Lag. It's inherent to a beta release to have issues like this, but knowing how they denied it in WoT for 2 years and then failed to address the problem for the rest of 1-2 years then yes, it's a big problem that will probably plague WoWs for a looong time. Nasty. The game engine and general aspect are Okish. Nothing thrilling, nothing outright wrong, just a big "meh, ok". Balance For tens of battles (100? something like that) in CV I never got a balanced game. It's either my IJN CV vs american full-of-fighters CV, two IJN vs two AM, one vs two or finally just my CV, no opponent. Not a single balanced one. And the Am fighters vs IJN torpers, it's boring. Hide and seek again. And then the balance decision changed the gameplay dramatically in 0.4.1, making my tier 4 CV unplayable. Just like that, blip, one line of grind just vanishes from play options. Just like that. Not gonna complain , why would I, I simply stopped playing CV. Not cool to lose that grind on a blind balance. Conclusion Instead of filling the gap that NavyField 2 created (there's nothing to see there either), Wargaming made one of those 5$-for-a-dozen game. It's just not about navy warfare, this one. And no thrills either, no gameplay depth, no eye candy, nothing. Just a big "meh". Not happy, we'll have to way who-knows-how-much for another dev to even begin to have another navy title, for a hope of navy play. Till then I salute you, have fun.
×