Jump to content

Tatsfield

Players
  • Content Сount

    237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    10489
  • Clan

    [LEAKS]

About Tatsfield

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

713 profile views
  1. Tatsfield

    Toxic player on Co-op battle.

    Never understood the worry about "kill stealing". Firstly it's a team game and sinking enemy ships only benefits the team. Personal rewards are about damage, so if you've damaged an enemy to within 10 HP of his life and someone finishes him of, the team benefits from game points and you've got most of the damage that you could inflict on the dead enemy. Why would you worry about the odd 10 HP and red ribbon which gives you nothing unless you are on some ribbon winning mission and in that case you should have sunk the enemy and not left him sculling about ripe for the first single shell to hit him? Players that worry about such insignificances either don't understand the game or are personality disordered. Just ignore them and they will go away .
  2. Tatsfield

    Here it is... New voice with ARP collaboration

    No, I am hooked on WoW but its the dodgy cartoon girls with silly voices that bemuses me!
  3. Tatsfield

    Here it is... New voice with ARP collaboration

    People actually put in work to achieve this nonsense? The whole thing seems like a distasteful fetish. Why would anyone want to admit to being involved with it in any way? Please don't anyone try to explain this fixation as it can only make it worse!
  4. Tatsfield

    Devs fix the the damn map border abuse

    WG originally decided to penalise ships which hit the border by cutting the engine power to 50%. That means that firstly they do see hitting the border as being worthy of a penalty and secondly they were prepared to impose one. Now that hitting the border is not just about running out of playing space and not being sufficiently careful to avoid doing so but contains an element of advantage if a technique is applied, WG should work in accordance with the first precept and raise the penalty in accordance with the second. This is not a new principle but the development of an existing one. Since they already have a mechanism to detect the contact with the boundary and another to alter the state of the ship, it cannot be a very extensive or complicated problem to extend this to making the penalty more than just a transient disadvantage like temporary loss of engine power but one that reduces the players survival chances or game winning ability. Automatic reduction of HP would seem to be the simplest thing to do and if it were easy to do it could be done on an accelerating rate so that staying for a really long time would sink the ship. This could disadvantage DDs etc more than BBs but since it is the smaller vessels which can use the border mechanics to gain an advantage, that seems fair. Vessels with low HP would be taking a serious risk by approaching the boundary but that would stop them running away when their HP got low. If we'd have had this system from day one, I doubt whether anyone would be complaining about it as it would be as accepted as loosing the 50% engine power. I didn't plough through the whole thread so if this possible solution has been discussed earlier, I apologise.
  5. Tatsfield

    What kind of temporary battle do you like?

    I'd love to have an opinion on this but I don't understater all the abbreviations that are used. pvp, pve, exp, kpi. And what did the game designer do that he has to apologise to the 3D modeller? Sounds like a riddle out of a Xmas cracker! And when I do learn what all this means, will I feel any better?
  6. Tatsfield

    Thunderstorm visibility

    This part of the provided game play and is available to all as part of the provided game play. Finding ways to tweek the graphics to eliminate something that is part odf the provided game play is different as it revolves around stepping out of the provided game play to achieve it. I see the non detonation signal as something similar to playing against a provided ship that has a better spec than mine. I don't see that as cheating however annoying it can be. If WG provided a button on the screen which allowed you to improve the visibility, it would be there for all and everyone could use it, but they don't. If they did I suppose it would negate the entire weather concept. There are many things in WoW which we may not like but you can't go around and accuse people of cheating by using a provided feature which isn't like doctoring the graphics settings. So the question is, at what point does it become acceptable to doctor the graphics to defeat the weather feature?
  7. Tatsfield

    Thunderstorm visibility

    I don't like the reduced visibility that the bad weather brings and I do sympathise with older players about sight issues as I am certainly an older player! But I do worry about the ability to reduce in-game effects that should be standard for all players. I don't like to think that while I'm squinting to see the bow outline of a target to evaluate my shooting lead, other players are able to see my outline in their binoculars as clear as day. If there were ways of making shells home onto citadels automatically, everyone would complain about those players who availed themselves of the option but when WG introduce a realism aspect to the game, no one sees anything wrong with players dumbing down the realism to gain an advantage. If the weather visibility parameters can be negated, WG shouldn't put them in and if they insist on putting them in, they should remove any way which their effects can be reduced. Prowess in this game should be measured by skill under a commonly played operating system and not by an ability to manipulate the way it works because although I have never ever posted complaining about "cheating", isn't that the definition of cheating?
  8. Tatsfield

    A Message to the BB Captains.

    As a BB driver, the speed differential between forge ahead DDs and struggling old BBs always irks me when the DDs call for support and are receding into the distance at a differential rate of 20 knots which is about as fast as some of my BBs can travel flat out. If then, in desperation to give them cover, I make a half turn to broadside towards their opposition and fire long range to give the minimal help that I can at that range, I then get accused of hanging back to avoid damage. If I plough on and only have the front turrets to use, my efforts are inadequate at that range with fewer shells and the DDs do not get the support that they have demanded. I think it is the job of cruisers to support DDs because they have the speed. On the other hand, if a BB wants support from a DD, perhaps to help protect against an enemy DD torpedo attack, it is very rare for DDs to turn around from their high speed fun run and come back to help their big fat brothers. They don't seem to think the support system cuts both ways. Sorry I just needed the rant.
  9. Tatsfield

    British Battleships - End of the line.

    Sea Ram maximum speed mach 2.8 . Hypersonic anti ship missiles are reputed to achieve mach 5 so a RAM has to engage an HASM head on at a closing speed of mach 7.8, which doesn't bode well for acquisition and convergence. It certainly doesn't have the ability to chase it if it misses. Maybe stealth is the only protection against such high speed weapons and if so perhaps Dreadnaught 2050 might become a necessity.
  10. Tatsfield

    Why WoWS is not fun anymore

    No it isn't and no it doesn't and that's way more polite than accusing your entire reply of being pointless! Boredom is an affliction of the over privileged young who can be bored with everything that doesn't pander to their personal satisfaction. And since I'm not applying that remark to you personally, it's not as impolite as it could have been. Having to battle against and lose to a superior opponent may not satisfy the aspiring winner but it doesn't mean that is isn't interesting.
  11. Tatsfield

    Why WoWS is not fun anymore

    I'd like to offer a counter point to the criticism of the MM system. It is this. There is no reason why in a battle mode called random the two teams have to be balanced. If the makeup of the teams was purely random, one side would stand a pretty good chance of being trashed but if the selection was truly random, individual players would all have an equal chance in games of being on the stronger side and the more times they were on the weaker side they would eventually even up the outcome as they picked up more allocations to stronger teams. If you played hundreds of battles, your chances of being on the stronger side would be 50% because your chance of being on the stronger side is the same for every player and there are only two sides and if you're not on one, you're on the other one. Once those players, who seem to think that WoW is some sort of artificial match with even numbers of players on each side with equal ships, adjusted to the random nature of the game they might enjoy the challenge of a weaker team beating a stronger one because of player skill and not off the shelf fire power. A lot of players will not accept this because they live their entire lives fixating on what is fair in a world where very little is actually fair but expect the virtual world of WoW to offer them that fairness that they crave. Warfare is all about harnessing unfairness to beat the enemy. Successful warriors plan their battles so that when they meet the enemy they outnumber him and preferably are in a position to shoot him in the back before he can respond. It might be construed to be unfair if it turned out that the weaker team had a high proportion of top class players who more than equalised the apparent deficit of their vessels. But whatever happened in this scenario, random would really mean random is all aspects of the game and no one knowing that there was no balance could whinge about the MM set up. Asymmetric mode started to go towards this but there was still an MM aspect and there was still an outburst from the "fair brigade" that somehow they were being deprived of their gaming rights. I really liked Asymmetric and would not have worried about it being even more asymmetric than it was. If WoW rewarded players for their skill, team play and personal results, it might not matter if players were on the losing team so long as they enjoyed the battle. I don't expect the conventional forum jockeys to accept this treatise but then mindsets tend to be fixed, especially by the aspect of "fairness" As they say in exam questions; discuss!
  12. Tatsfield

    Game crashing problem

    My CPU is only an i5 with an internal 4600 GPU. The CPU runs hot when playing WoW and the GPU is running at 100%. I cleaned out the case about 6 months ago. Perhaps I need to consider a more powerful CPU with a separate gaming suitable GPU. The machine was always a general purpose computer and not configured for gaming but it managed WoW for over 3 years without problems, so either the hardware is deteriorating or WoW is now demanding more processing power, or probably both!
  13. Tatsfield

    Game crashing problem

    I have had this problem and I found that if I minimised all the graphics settings it didn't occur but as soon as I raised any of them the screen froze when there was extensive graphics action such as explosions or several ships on screen firing broadsides with flames and clouds of smoke and fires. It's a bit galling to see my screen in low res and know that there are really good high res graphics available that I cannot use. This all started about two months ago.
  14. Tatsfield

    Why Remove the choice of Asymmetric Battles?

    I loved it. It made a lot more sense than Random where there are two matched teams like a rugby match and the worst one loses. Most complaints about Asymmetric revolved around the bots which were not there as part of the mode but to make up numbers when not enough players opted for something new and a little worrying. Actually this would also be true of every battle mode if it was under subscribed, bots are used to make up the numbers. WG worried too much about how unpopular the mode was going to be and tried to bribe players to play low tier and limit others from playing high tier with silly battle tokens. I suppose all this was because the whole exercise was to study how the mode could play and how it worked and they couldn't wait for it to gain popularity over a long period of time. Actually it looked like it was gaining popularity and the only criticisms left were about how unprofitable it might be to play, which is pretty lame as a critique of a new and interesting battle mode. I for one hope it comes back with lessons learned. Hopefully that will be the case as it was only set up to learn lessons. If you think about it there is absolutely no reason why opposing battle fleets should have almost identical constituents if they can be balanced in other ways that do not depend on identical numbers with almost identical opposing vessels. Asymmetric opened up all sorts of new tactics needed to play numerically different opposing forces. There are a lot more ways to balance asymmetric fleets than just having a small high tier force opposing a larger low tier force. I'm hoping WG play around with the possibilities and produce a permanent battle mode where battles are not always so damn repetitive, win or lose. There are a lot of possibilities. One is to have a lack of balance but reward the disadvantaged team disproportionately well for winning. That would be a real challenge for the underdogs and very satisfying if they pull it off. It would stop players looking at the game as a sort of naval football match rather than a naval warfare game. And in conclusion,
  15. Tatsfield

    Thanks for improving the environment visuals

    Anything which improves immersion is great with me. Unfortunately I'm having to run the game on the lowest graphics level to prevent it from freezing and costing me pink points to escape, so much of the improved graphics are wasted on me.
×