Jump to content

Gojuadorai

Players
  • Content count

    2,373
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    12285
  • Clan

    [NWP]

About Gojuadorai

  • Rank
    Lieutenant
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    your mom's bedroom

Recent Profile Visitors

708 profile views
  1. TK punishment

    pretty much this was waht i thought also i really encounter intentional tk's quite rarely. i think a punishment of getting a timed ban after more than say 2tks in 24h would be way more effective in stopping intentional tks
  2. while i love my pitchfork i think you got the sister ship thing wrong. (you could be right though) what i think he meant was to not have the dunq on T6 and the strassbourg on T6/T7. if im right the strassbourg was to be armored better that would create the problem of having a straight up better silver ship on T6 or a bad ship on T7..... so i do not think ist as dramatic as you make it out to be but its worriesome non the less and needs to be monitored "They weren’t too eager to add sisterships in this branch, so Strasbourgh-Dunkirk(assume he meant dunq.)."
  3. well ofc my statement was oversimplified what you say is true withing bounds especially the second part, it pains me that they build in skillnormalization so much the better you get the more frustrating it gets
  4. well yeah if you have 16 guns dispersion hardly matters (i know the vid but imho its a fail if used to show that 16 guns are op which the creator wanted to show, half of the shoots you could have made in any 8+ gun BB of t7+) im just frustrated they seemm to be unwilling to release any accurate BBs for now and prob the future beacuse they want to protect broadside sailing noobs in cruisers.....
  5. yes this part was super shady it amde me agngry cause its just wrong in multiple ways
  6. a wedding you dont want to attend
  7. WoWs Warpack - Is it legal?

    i'd advise you to edit the title and post mentioning of forbidden mods afaik violates the forum terms.......
  8. well kinda irritated thes so little feedback on this. i atleast expected 4-5 people to completely hate it
  9. Poll: Ship Class for Stalingrad & Kronshtadt

    you really want to be that close to anthing in THAT ship? and even then i wouldnt call it great.... in top of that it has prob one of the worst H dispersions in the game
  10. well i fear a skill based drop system would consider the average skill be implemented in a way so that the situation would be actually worse if you play against a good cv thats why i like the idea i proposed it would go into the game without changing any mechanics but still improve the situation for both sides
  11. HI, the Ap bomb is a controversial topic and often a binary weapon - either you delete a ship - or you nearly incapable to harm it (or hit it) this leaves the option eiteher unsuited for competetive, unfun, or OP two things i would want to balance out are: -no more single uncounterable single drop dev-strikes -more flexibility for the CV but how to do it? i think its easy. create mixed squads instead of pure ap squads! e.g.: the cv could choose between squad options (numbers are only for explanation not final proposal): -8 divebombers with HE (He Pattern) -6 divebombers HE (with HE pattern) 2Dive bombers with AP (ap pattern, would have to be determined what is possible or makes sense) this way he could trade of the posibility to reliably tack fires/floodings and hit lit ships against the posibility to alphastrike certain ships better at the lower chance to reliably create fires and drop light ships ths whould make cvs more flexible and not shoehorn them into a verry narro playstyle and getting rid ofthe frustration geting autodrop deleted. so basically a win win for all what do you guys think? -
  12. Poll: Ship Class for Stalingrad & Kronshtadt

    as they are now they are terribly inaccurate
  13. Mosaic and Spring Tie camo's

    wow those are quite insane
  14. well there is so much wrong in this post... ill leave it at everybody is entitled to an opinion. but please dont reduce acc to sigma... that so simplified that it is basically wrong.
×