Zombie_Wizard

Players
  • Content count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3896

About Zombie_Wizard

  1. If I remember correctly, this is already the third time RU has missions to unlock a tier 5 premium. I think they had missions for Marblehead and Krasny Krym before. I doubt EU would have lost many sales giving those two out for free, especially the latter.
  2. So, about the "deal 100k damage to russian ships" mission: Could it be easier and faster to do this mission in Coop? If you queue for coop in a russian ship you're guaranteed a russian ship on the opposing team. And the more people are doing it, the more efficient it would get. Additionally, it would spare the people playing russians in random a lot of grief.
  3. Eh, I thought this thread was about matchmaking? ​So, on topic: It is certainly a good idea to do something about the possible overabundance of T10s, but why stop there? Currently, the most frustrating thing that can happen is when you're one of very few bottom tiers in a mostly top tier battle. I'd really like to see something similar to the new WoT matchmaking, as it solves both problems. It creates two-tier and single-tier battles, when there's too much of a certain tier in queue, and in 3-tier battles the lower tiers will be in the majority. Plus it males sure you are not bottom tier more than three times in a row. ​All in all, it sounds pretty great to me, and it allows keeping the three-tier spread in general. ​Sure, it will likely increase queue times, but corrently those are very short to nonexistent during the usual hours.
  4. BBs are already close to useless at long range and deadly for cruisers at close range. Making this more pronounced would be a terrible idea, every BB would be surrounded by a 10km "no sail"-zone for cruisers. Combine that with the usual '5 BB per team' battles and cruisers would have a really hard time surviving if they do anything else than stay the hell back and spam HE from max range. The BBs in turn would be utterly helpless against this, since their long range accuracy has been reduced. So in conclusion, be careful what you whish for.
  5. I'd favor a stepwise reduction of visibility after firing. Basically the closer the enemy, the longer you'd be spotted. Sure its one of the most complicated solutions, but it would allow for lots of tweaking between ships (different slopes, number of steps, linear/nonlinear/exponential reduction, etc.). Also visibility should be allowed to extend beyond gunrange after firing, at least for BBs.
  6. ​Oh, don't get me wrong I'm certainly not one of those "this should be a simulation"-guys. Its just nice to have a bit of historical context in some aspects, when the gameplay allows it.
  7. There are two things I'd like to mention concerning the french cruisers and other new/upcoming lines in general: First, why is it that every new line has to be at least decent (meaning above average) to be considered wothwhile? Do you want powercreep? Because that's how you get powercreep! Don't get me wrong, noone's hoping for a line of turds, but as long as they end up somewhere between "best" and "worst" and​ as long as the difference between "best" and "worst" is not too big (*cough* Kutuzov *cough*) a new line should be fine Second, there are those people who say ships should be faster and/or better armoured to make them more competitive (see also: British cruisers, Akizuki). They are sad that WG at least tries​ to keep some aspects according to historical specifications. They should be mad at early 20th century naval engineers, for not having anticipated this game. I imagine the following conversation back in the day: Engineer 1: "This design finally fulfills most of the requirements, while beeing within treaty limitations, and at a reasonable cost too!" ​Engineer 2: "Yeah, but... what if in 80 years someone makes a kind of.. electronic game based around warships? But with mechanics based on tank combat? Then this design is woefully inadequate! Also it is for some reason very similar to other nations proven designs, we should include some kind of gimmick or other unique characteristic for the sake of differentiation. Engineer 1: "..." Engineer 2:"Finally, if the ships are ever odered roughly chronological in some kind of tiered "line", it will feel very inconsistent if we deviate too far from previous designs..." ​Engineer 1:"You're fired!"
  8. The skillpoints are displayed as "undistributed points"/"total points", not "undsitributed points"/"distributed points", so you never had a 17-pointer to begin with. I must admit that the way it is displayed can be quite misleading and I get it mixed up once in a while as well.
  9. In my opinion, the best solution would be a sort of compromise between applying the firing penalty for the full 20s and only applying it for an extremely short time: Have the firing penalty gradually reduced over time. So right after firing everyone within your gunrange ( or even beyond) can see you, but after a few sec the penalty is reduced and only closer enemies can spot you. This repeats until your detection is back to normal. Different guns/calibers could be differentiated not only by their initial penalty, but also by the characteristics of the reduction function. I could even imagine new upgrades which modify these characteristics, e.g. an upgrade that decreases the initial firing penalty for an increase in penalty decay time.
  10. You may have to remount the camo, but it should definitely be available on both ships, as stated in the patch notes.
  11. ​Yeah, that one baffles me as well. It is the same for the Hatsuharu (who at least has slightly better guns, concealment and speed), and ist was like that for the old tier VI Mutsuki. I guess it is supposed to be a free xp sink for all but the most masocistic players? I mean, what are you supposed to do in a Fubuki, when you can't launch torps without being spotted? Use your guns? Well you can take on tier V japanese DDs with some confidence, everything else is risky to hopeless. You could sit in smoke, but you need someone to do the spotting and it won't do that much damage, since the smoke duration is relatively short and ROF is low. Generally, there is not that much you can do to help your team in a Fubuki with stock torps. If you could at least upgrade them directly, it would not be as bad, but first requiring a 10k xp hull upgrade ist just cruel.
  12. I can't quite decide what to vote on this one. I'd say keep the current MM spread, since it's likely the better alternative, but I wouldn't say that it is "fine" as it is. The Imperator Nikolai is clearly the strongest ship at tier IV, and back in the day the +2 MM was perfectly fine. But one needs to keep in mind that, at that time, tier IV cruisers and destroyers also had a +2 spread, whilst nowdays a +2 MM Nikolai would almost always be the ​only ​tier IV in a tier VI game.
  13. The rendering range gets reduced gradually after the cyclone hits. I suspect you only notice it right after the countdown ends, if your base render range is extremely high to begin with. In a ship with low render range, e.g. a destroyer, it takes quite a while until you notice any difference. And, as was already said, for the render range to go all the way down to 8km, it takes almost 2 min.
  14. I really don't think there is any considerable amount of rigging going on when clanmates meet each other in battle, be it by random chance or by multi-queueing. As was already said, there isn't really any benefit from that, and you risk getting banned. I do however suspect that some people multi-queue hoping to end up on the same team. I don't know how likely that is to work, but I do know that I've likely been on the recieving end of a clan-based curbstomping a few days ago when 6 of the 7 enemy top tier ships belonged to two divisions, both containing players with the same clan tag.
  15. But keep in mind that in the IJN line split all ships that changed in tier were downtiered, It could be that WG will not let you keep the ship going up one or two tiers. Well, they might, but I wouldn't count on it^^