Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About Quazie

  • Rank
    Officer Cadet
  • Birthday 08/16/1961
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Gillingham, Kent

Recent Profile Visitors

756 profile views
  1. Quazie

    Suggestions thread

    Allow PDF file uploads to forum for long posts / detailed explanations, everyone can read PDF.
  2. Quazie

    Suggestions thread

    The words spoken pretty much say what the slides do. Thanks for the comment.
  3. Quazie

    Suggestions thread

    My suggestion is about the suggestion system and a way to improve on what we have. To avoid "To Long Didn't Read" I decided to record it in spite of a bad recording voice with a cold on top. Watch the video and hopefully it will become clear how much of an improvement we COULD have with some thought. https://youtu.be/HNvVYetlWqQ And please someone tell me how you get videos into a post please.
  4. Quazie


    Yep we are still active, numbers on at any one time vary. Welcome to join if you want to apply. We would like people to be on TS3 when they play, and we consider Exclusion after 30 days dormant.
  5. Quazie

    Improvement of the Matchmaker

    The two tier span is a problem on ALL levels, my fear is that by making special effect to fix the T8 problem it will just get pushed down to T6 and T7 Way to go if you are trying with other incentives to get more players in the mid tiers. If I was to get 40% up tier only that means the other 60% is same tier or down tier that means more 2 level splits at T6 and T7. MM road map (add slurred speech and accent for effect if you want) "Iz no problem! I can do same on T7" "oh! problem have moved to T6" "Iz no problem! I can do same on T6" "oh! problem have moved to T5" The reason it manifests at T8 is simple T10 is top tier they have no +1 so it stands to reason the problem would occur most noticeably at Two tiers down T8 This problem happens at all tiers, it is just not as prominent because they are to removed from the top (End) tier. Just go for +1 OR -1 because all the time it is +1 and -1 someone will get two tier difference, it is simple logic! Expand to +/-1 at low server times. More importantly sort out the balance with CV and Radar 1 CV per game (or dd suffer badly) 4 dd max (I still get to many games with 5, I even had one with 7) and I play dd Even out the Radar Split, 4 on one team and none on the other is a joke, it could have been 2 on each. You have been give a bucket load of suggestions yet you determine the T8 problem is the answer, and what a complicated system you come up with to try that. +1 OR -1, less code, less to go wrong, more robust and more reliable, less monitoring meaning less overhead.
  6. Quazie

    Submarines are Coming

    Nobody is asking for a perfect well balanced game, I don't think such an animal exists. But the effects of their changes often come with wildly unbalanced games (Not all the time), how many time have you heard of "Top" players having long runs of losing games and then blaming the mythical "Potato". The problem come in part from the "Potatoes" not being able to deal with a large swing in the balance on a game, so they camp, or rush in and die. I was in a game with 4 destroyers per side, 4 Radar ships on one side (theirs) 2 with 10km and 2 with 12km. They could get in the caps and we couldn't for the first half of the game, guess what side won. I was in a game with 4 destroyers per side, and 2 CV's per side, their CV's targeted the destroyers out waited the smokes and between the planes (half your health in one strike) and the focus fire you have no chance, all 4 dd's were taken out in the 1st 5 or 6 minutes. The enemy dd's were largely left alone and lasted well into the game. British Battleships threw the whole "Fire" mechanic out of balance, it started a wave of battleships spamming HE at everyone, cruisers burned down by battleships constantly, but you only hear about the battleships getting torched. The game stabilized a bit, but it is still there. How did WG try to fix this, change the battleship fire zones, reduce the effects of fire, when they could have just addressed the issue they caused and nerfed chance of fire across the board encouraging the use of more AP. (I mean up to 63% chance of fire) You see what I am talking about. They didn't account for Radar in the matchmaker (which is broken anyway), if there were 4 why was it not 2 per side. They didn't account for CV's focusing DD buy out waiting their smokes, they assumed as soon as a DD appeared the CV would use all his strikes, they didn't take into account the CV player that strikes and keeps back the last part purely to spot so the DD can be focus fired. They didn't account for the wave of BB switching to HE and screwing over all classes, but they only really addressed the issue on BB fire zones and a small nerf to fire damage rate. Each time they address the issue by changing something else instead of addressing the change they made directly. In engineering you take stock of the current situation, you make the changes planned, you take stock of the affects, sometimes a further change is required, sometimes you remove the change and go back to the drawing board to redesign it into a form that takes into account the unforeseen issues it caused. But you never just leave it in place and decide this CNC machining centre will work fine if we fix that coffee machine over there. Have they never heard of root cause analysis? I welcome a "Slightly unbalanced" game but not the landslides we get from "Hugely unbalanced" games. Broken MM, Broken Fire Mechanic, Continuing CV issues and other unmentioned issues, surely some of these need to be fixed before compounding the issues with a new class. With so many issues not addressed I find it hard to be optimistic for their implementation of submarines, don't get me wrong I like the idea, I just have little faith in WG to do it correctly, they will rush it in and screw up gameplay in way they haven't even thought of yet. If you continue to put in new things without fixing existing problems you spiral down a road that takes you to a place where there are so many problems you can't see the wood for the trees. As a side note do you know what the largest cause of losing customers is.. "Customer dissatisfaction"
  7. Quazie

    Submarines are Coming

    Agreed this is not good. But a submerged craft in that era was effectively out of communication I believe, they should therefore not get mini map reported positions while submerged.
  8. Quazie

    Submarines are Coming

    IF it is an improvement, the track record is not to good! Radar, causes matchmaking and game balance issues. CV, an ongoing saga with continuous debates around balance. NTC, Nobody wanted it but it came anyway, the implementation was changed seemingly ignoring stacks of very good suggestions that could have made it much better. The current ship balancing system needs a major overhaul, and now they want to add a new class to a broken system, that'll work The ideas are sound enough it is the way WG implements things, they get an idea stuck in their head and won't change or adapt it to be workable. They just screw up the already broken balance even more. My guess is they steam ahead with development before broaching the subject in the forums for feedback, then they have already committed to much time and resource to make changes easily, perhaps when they have and idea they should put some feelers out to find out how receptive the players are first. They could have run a thread on the forums for this, or with major changes they could have put it in the port so you could click on it and go give feedback/opinions/suggestions from more players, a lot of people don't come in the forums, but they will leave the game if you screw it up. WG: For your sake put this in as a separate game mode and keep it there for a very long test and development period, never force this on Random of Clan Battle. You will need to gather stats and monitor this for a long time and LISTEN to the feedback! Yet another class to decimate DD play