Jump to content

_Teob_

Players
  • Content Сount

    1,136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    11756
  • Clan

    [TTT]

1 Follower

About _Teob_

  • Rank
    Midshipman
  • Insignia
    [TTT]

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,018 profile views
  1. _Teob_

    Banned to chat?

    See, if it were up to me, I would ban you for this message alone. Not because of one ideology or another but because you keep trying to politicize this forum which is out of line and because that word in particular is a combination of liberal and a highly offensive word. Just based on this thread alone you seem like an unpleasant individual and if you behaved the same way in chat then your ban is totally warranted.
  2. _Teob_

    DD tactics for 0.8.0, how do we survive?

    I guess slightly worse. I mean I would still take roughly the same captain skills (PT, LS, SE, CE, SI/BFT)
  3. _Teob_

    DD tactics for 0.8.0, how do we survive?

    Oh and on topic, I don't think the situation is too bad. The Grozovoi at least is perfectly fine in this new meta. Sure CVs will kill you if they decide to focus you but between def AA, smoke and sheer speed, they prefer to go for other targets.
  4. _Teob_

    DD tactics for 0.8.0, how do we survive?

    Haha, yeah I noticed you too - hence why I did the "o7" at the start - I should have been more specific.
  5. _Teob_

    Z52 needs some love

    While I appreciate the advice, I actually do OK in the Z52 - it isn't about me. The point is that the ship overall is lackluster.
  6. _Teob_

    Z52 needs some love

    The problem is that currently it gives up too much for the hydro. A daring for example will quite happily rush you in your smoke while you are hydro-ing him. It will eat a torpedo and still kill you. I am not quite sure what you are meant to do in that situation. I don't think a small gun buff would make it OP.
  7. _Teob_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    If I were to venture a guess, I suspect they need to fix it because it probably breaks something else. Maybe something to do with the way planes detect things. Or maybe it's a potential vulnerability which could be exploited. Or maybe it was just already in the patch that was ready to be rolled out and it's virtually impossible to change anything if you are that far in. They would have needed to make the change and retest everything. You cannot release an untested patch. I genuinely don't see any reason to assume they are just doing it to spite the community. Especially since they have said they will implement the mechanic as requested by the community. I don't like that they are changing it either but if they say they need to do it, then I trust them. It's also helpful to remember that while we may not agree with everything WG does, I am pretty damn sure they are well intended. Like sure, some things might be questionable from our PoV but then again none of us came up with the idea to make a fantasy warship game so maybe they do sort of know what they are doing... Not saying we shouldn't hold them to account but we got our answer here. If we don't hear anything about this in like 4-5 weeks, then we will remind them of their promise. For now however, there's nothing else to discuss here.
  8. _Teob_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    Welcome to the forum! This issue has already been decided in the sense that the current mechanic (which is a bug) will be fixed and changed to the 20s spotting which we previously had but only for a limited time until the current mechanic is implemented (and not just a bug).
  9. _Teob_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    ...and back to our regular programming of bickering among ourselves. Crisis averted.
  10. _Teob_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    I am OK with this. At least there is now a discussion ongoing about the bloom. Maybe that will lead to us having a system identical with the current "bugged" one or maybe it will just mean different bloom timers for different classes of ship. At any rate we know that the 20s bloom system is going the way of the dodo at some point.
  11. _Teob_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    Regardless of any other discussions, the fact that, between the EU server and the US server 2500+ players took time to vote against this proposed change is astonishing. It really is a big enough sample to be considered representative. On all other issues this (and the NA) community is divided. We argue and bicker endlessly about inconsequential details. We debate what CVs should wear to the beach, whether or not marriage between a BB and a torpedo should be legal and if the latest released camo makes Zao's butt look big. And people who usually cannot agree whether or not water is wet are now sitting (metaphorical) shoulder to shoulder on this. I truly hope that this show of solidarity and concern for the game won't be ignored. At the end of the day it is of course WGs decision but I genuinely think this is one of those situations where the change should at least be delayed if not outright cancelled.
  12. _Teob_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    The lads over in North America seem to have similar opinions. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/180577-this-detectability-mechanic-was-not-an-issue-poll-added/
  13. _Teob_

    Close please - redundant

    Close please - redundant
  14. _Teob_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    Someone create a poll already. The question is simple. Which firing bloom version do you prefer? The two options were already highlighted by Conway here: 8.0 proposed change: You fire and get gun bloom and are spotted While spotted you break line of sight You are unspotted but your gun bloom remains for the full 20 second duration Currently: You fire and get gun bloom and are spotted While spotted you break line of sight You are unspotted and your gun bloom is reset I would have created it but I was worried someone was already on it.
  15. _Teob_

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    We got that. We're past that point. But the consensus seems to be that the current iteration is the one with the most equity among the community.
×