Jump to content
Advent Calendar Website Issues Read more... ×


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

About tenacious_torps

Recent Profile Visitors

758 profile views
  1. tenacious_torps

    So answer me this...

    Only true if you somehow manage to get your engine AND rudder broken while out of position simultaneously. Everything else is down to incapability to read map and game and mastering the art of making the correct choice of ammo from a confusing variety of 2. So the fify version: Yet there is no counter play for BBs against DDs, but skill and awareness. Which wasn't the case for DDs against CVs before 0.8.3. whatsoever. DDs are just the worst off of the bunch tho, it's quite true for CV vs surface ship interaction in general with the rework: it's mostly some silly RNG automatics against CV skill. It's one of the more severe of just too many conceptual failures with this rework. All the balancing done and to be done is mere damage mitigation and we're settled with the mess. So at this point the only yardstick that makes some sense is how changes affect the meta and anything that makes actual tactical play a bit more valid again is better than further promotion of the blob of death. It's death by boredom too often.
  2. Ah... I was getting my hopes up here. Anyway, once you've worked out how things go there, any chance you could be talked into doing some sort of migration guide? Not like I'd mind learning some Chinese, but... err... XD
  3. Wait a mo... server transfer and ship recovery? Can you please elaborate on that a bit more? TIA
  4. tenacious_torps

    Fara vs WG Lead Designer on CV rework

    China number one then Let's see if the ping is bearable.
  5. tenacious_torps

    Fara vs WG Lead Designer on CV rework

    Fara's playing RTS CVs on the Chinese server now, for anybody with severe withdrawal symptoms. Does anybody know if they're keeping pre 0.8 up for the foreseeable future there? Might actually be tempted to make a new account there then.
  6. tenacious_torps

    Player Numbers. How much are they actually down?

    Anybody got numbers for daily matches played, preferably with tiers?
  7. tenacious_torps

    Fara vs WG Lead Designer on CV rework

    Are you wrong? Well... do you like the meta we got as a result of this botched rework? If not, you can pretty much shorten the advice to don't play, can't you? Pretty much eradicates any doubts whatsoever about what the answer to your last question is.
  8. tenacious_torps

    Player Numbers. How much are they actually down?

    It's the second best one, actually. There is also a permanent solution available in Game Center. Granted, it's 3 clicks, but you only need to do it once.
  9. tenacious_torps

    Why is the UI so laggy?

    Oh, it's costing them money in the short run too. I recall several times, where the laggy UI gave me enough time to develop second thoughts about a purchase I was going to make on impulse.
  10. tenacious_torps

    The most important information on today's live QnA

    Everybody is screwed, because the meta changes due to this mess just stink af. Literally, af and no washing for a week afterwards. Luckily there's one handy one-click-solution available in the friggin' Game-Center.
  11. tenacious_torps

    Why is the UI so laggy?

    Because the UI was cobbled together in FLASH by an intern years ago
  12. tenacious_torps

    On how to balance and refund OP premium ships - an inquiry

    Much tl;dr. There is one very simple point, that can't be argued away no matter what. When I invested in premium ships, it was based on WG's statement to not nerf them. The product is actually a specific experience, not some pixels. Or, to be even more precise, in a certain way the product is actually the insurance that said experience will not change dramatically. The only acceptable compensation is cash, the resetting of the entire transaction the return to the status quo ante. Never happened, nothing to see here, moving on. WG are then free to convince me to buy the altered product - experience - and I will be free to take or decline that offer. Of course, at this point, I'd have to reinstall the game again... but I might, if and when I come to the conclusion that WG are a company worth dealing with again. As of now, they very certainly are not.
  13. tenacious_torps

    Help please

    Sunk cost fallacy applies to monetary and emotional investment.
  14. tenacious_torps

    On how to balance and refund OP premium ships - an inquiry

    There's a very easy way to avoid pissing off paying customers here: do not touch paid for goods in any way that makes them in any perceivable way worse, instead you re-balance everything else around them. More work, certainly, but the one and only way to reconcile long term customer trust and the need to adjust balance. Not cheap, probably even refunding would be cheaper in the short run, but a whole lot of soft factor benefits, including a quite notable sign of long term commitment to the game. Might even be enough to make me install it again.
  15. How much closer does it need to get, before it becomes a scam? Just trying to work out the topography of scumbaggery here. Call it academic interest. Good. Exactly the right reaction. Posting here is just a way of letting off some steam, writing a review with focus on WG's business practices and treatment of their community is what hurts them, where they actually feel it the most. Things like the recent promotion on humble - which doesn't come cheap - shows that their focus is on acquiring new players, in a way even the botched CV rework does. In other words, players who don't already own more premium ships than you can actually play regularly and are increasingly less likely to buy yet another one from the store. Of course, for those we have the continuous introduction of new currencies which give access to new OP ships at tiers where WG would need to reneg on yet another quite categorical statement to sell them directly, but obviously not enough fools took that bait. So now comes this next step in the strategy - the de-valuation of ships played with too much enthusiasm by too many too often. Gotta make them less fun to give you an incentive to buy some more in the hope to find the next actually fun ship in time before it gets taken out of the shop to fuel the false scarcity economy and not-gambling... Think I covered it quite completely here, let me know if I missed something. Existing players just stopping to spend only creates even more incentive to follow through with this scheme, writing reviews in places where people thinking about getting into the game will read them on the other hand creates a dent in a completely different statistic. And one I highly suspect gets analysed particularly closely, so I'm rather sure the connection won't pass them by. Side-note: OP doesn't exactly and always equal fun, but in the case of the GC it kinda does. One of the few ships that allows to make match turning plays without having to rely on favourable RNG too much = fun. WG probably were better advised if they looked at why she is so popular with her owners and go for a bit of head scratching over that. Hint: it's not the damage potential. Of course, but her in a suitable division and it's broken af OP. And again that's not about the damage potential, is it? Nah, it's the double whopper. Divs allow just the same all on their own already and this scales to extreme extends. Somebody brought up "Why don't they nerf divs?" and the question isn't quite as ridiculous as it sounds at first. If over-performing is the deciding factor, there isn't much of an argument here, is it? But nobody really wants that, right? Because it's fun. In this case it's somewhat more sinister though. Connecting part of your social interactions with the game makes leaving it a lot harder for most and there's also good old peer pressure when it comes to spending on ships. Whatever. But please don't go on about how nerfing this or that is good for the game, that's an inherently naive and pretty brown-nosing way of looking at it. This is a business as hard as any other, you're only constructing a narrative that allows you to sugar-coat that.