Jump to content

jss78

Players
  • Content Сount

    1,077
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    8084

1 Follower

About jss78

  • Rank
    Midshipman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,379 profile views
  1. jss78

    3rd party advertisements are coming?

    ...I'd take this over the the anime stuff. A bit of honest-to-god capitalism never hurt anyone.
  2. Let me expand on the old player's angle. I understand WG believes there are old players in a position where they have "nothing to grind for". They've gone down to T10, in the trees they're interested in anyway, and the ships are fully "tricked out" with 19-pt captains etc. I believe this to be true, considered in isolation. Probably a good number of people would start grinding those new bonuses for their mid-tier ships. But there's a crucial difference between a fun grind and a forced grind. Nowadays, I have my dozens of fully maxed out ships waiting in port. I can play them for 100th, 200th etc., time when it pleases me. And that's a fun, relaxing good time. I can do stuff, I don't HAVE to do stuff. If you introduce a grind for a new set of performance-affecting bonuses, I am forced to do a new grind on ALL of my ships. I am "forced" because I am naturally not willing to play without bonuses others have, so I'd play to un-**ck my ship which used to be good but no longer is. This is not a fun prospect, and I am frankly not sure I'd even start the process -- i.e. I'd just not play at all. And beyond that, this system hurts the new player. I'd urge you to find us a fun grind. Something we "can" (but not "must") do, and we get something cool to show for it. E.g., give me a mountbatten pink special camo for my UK ships by doing some mission, and I'll be playing that thing like there's no tomorrow.
  3. Here's what I don't understand. Who WANTS this? Surely not the new player. They're going to get ****ed so hard that they can't walk upright for a month. There's just no way around this. And the old player? I'm in this camp. I have my old favourite ships, which had 19-pt captains years ago. I guess in principle I'm supposed to be the target here. Well I don't WANT a new grind, nor do I NEED a new grind for these ships. The way I approach the game is -- I log in the game, I pick a ship with a play style which feels like a pleasing thing at the moment. It might be the 100th game on that ship, it might be the 500th game. Doesn't matter. Give me a fun game, and I'll play it. We're completely screwing the new player for something I don't see the old player asking for. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe my perspective isn't shared by other old players. Maybe WG has some arcane F2P economics formula that robustly predicts this is the thing to do. And maybe they're right. But I will not play this thing.
  4. jss78

    Drydock: Kremlin

    Emphasis mine -- I'd add that even from a history buff's perspective, paper ships can be fine. In this game, we're reliving the World Wars in endless iterations. I think it's the perfect place to also explore alternative outcomes which for various reasons weren't realized. What if the German high seas fleet wasn't scrapped following 1918? What if an alternative design for a BB class won? What if the Soviets had an opportunity to go ahead with their naval programs? All the historical classics -- the Warspites, the Enterprises, and the Yamatos -- are the heart and soul of the game. But IMO it'd be a missed opportunity to not take a look at all the designs that never came to be. Just need to maintain a "reasonable" steel-to-paper ratio.
  5. jss78

    Simple answer to the Mega Stomps

    All this talk of 45% WR players kind of misses the mark IMO. That's not remarkably below average and I wouldn't over-analyze what's going on with them. They're somewhat below average players of a video game, and that's all there is to it. The 40% or below guys are more interesting. I've run a few a times to ~40% players who were actually talkative in chat. What unified them is they were constantly blaming their team, to the point of getting abusive. Nothing was ever their fault. They sucked, and beyond that, had a mentality where they would never learn anything either. I suspect this is common with the ultra-bad players. Some of the players who struggle might be really old guys (there's a fairly strong contingent of retired age people playing this game) or people with some kind of a disability. I have no issue with these. The Random queue is explicitly the place where everyone's welcome, and we should all accept that when we go there.
  6. jss78

    134 planes , T6 cv

    It was demonstrated months ago that (a) the planes are not infinite and (b) that the maximum # planes a CV can launch over a 20-minute game is similar as before 0.8.0. (and also, similar to to the historical hangar capacities) If you want to make a CV whine thread, please make a legitimate one and not repeat this falsehood over and over again. Also, I wonder how exactly you determined that the enemy CV's ability to deal damage wasn't at all affected. It looks to me like the enemy CV's didn't achieve much in this game. What's the problem here?
  7. Someone posted this obviously harebrained/humourous napkin scribbling in another thread. So, this got me thinking -- what is the hypothetical maximum size of a warship? Let's assume there are no limitations during the construction stage, or with logistics. So you would have a large enough dock, a harbour to take the ship, and no need to consider what Panama/Suez/Kiel etc. canals can take. Would it, in such a case, make sense to go bigger than has historically been done? Would it actually be economical, or is there a point of diminishing returns in terms of ship capability? Or some technical/structural reason why you just couldn't go past a certain size? Have there been any concrete plans for a ship decisively bigger than the Yamato?
×