Jump to content

UncappingBadger

Players
  • Content Сount

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [SWAGR]

About UncappingBadger

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. UncappingBadger

    Opinions on an accidental friendly torp

    Reporting a player for "Unsporting Behaviour" because they made a mistake / an error of judgement. Seems like a douchebag move to me especially if you deliberately getting yourself hit because you're too stubborn to do anything else.
  2. UncappingBadger

    Opinions on an accidental friendly torp

    So it's unsporting behaviour now? Really? Basically you're one of these players that see friendly torps and out of sheer stubbornness won't evade and then blame the other player for being hit when you seen the coming and could have adjusted your course / speed to miss them? I suppose when you hit that report button you feel a great sense of satisfaction knowing you're a grade A douchebag? I'll take the pink, i'll even accept that in this case maybe I could have done more to make sure that Kurfurst didn't get hit. But I wont accept a circumstance as you describe where the blame lies solely on the DD when YOU could have done something to avoid it knowing full well they were coming.
  3. UncappingBadger

    Opinions on an accidental friendly torp

    So to address some of the points here. 1 - As i've stated I was in front of the Kurfurst initially but turned around to clear his six of a DD stalking him (you would think he would appreciate that). I was then lit up by Radar and began trading fire with the Mino whilst closing the distance. Torps were fired at him on the slim chance he was stupid enough to come out and fight me in the open. If not at the very least they would keep him fixed in that position. At the time of launching those torps the Kurfurst was NOT on a heading that would have brought him into contact with them. He obviously made that turn after I fired. If the turn was a simple evasive turn, maybe 10-15 degrees to the left or right he still wouldn't have been in danger. His turn was a full 90 degrees. You would think if you're being HE spammed showing them the side of your ship, and thus a bigger target would be something you would want to avoid? 2 - The Kurfurst was NOT directly in the path of my torps for 95% of their 12km trip. Infact if he had been 10 seconds later they would probably have run out of steam and sunk to the bottom. 3 - For those saying "people don't have time to check their surroundings in a fight" that's utter tosh. Battleships especially have more than enough time to do a 360 scan around them in between salvos. The Harugumo has some of the quickest firing guns in the game, but I still find time to check around me between savlos, even if its only 45 degrees at a time and use the minimap to supplement my situational awareness. 4 - I understand turning pink is not a massive deal. In fact its already cleared itself. The point of the post was to discuss if the system which assigns blame to the firing ship regardless of circumstance is fair, and if more can be done to avoid it happening in the first place. A warning tone maybe that prompts players who are maneuvering into the path of a friendly torpedo and to check and take corrective, evasive action. 5 - I've already acknowledged that while I don't agree with it, the torps were my responsibility and thus the incident was my fault. What I don't accept from those of you who say this is that I should be able to see in to the future and predict what another player is going todo. My balls are hairy, not crystal.
  4. UncappingBadger

    Opinions on an accidental friendly torp

    It was late game and had degenerated into several different melee's. He only managed to get in front of me orientation wise because i turned round to hunt another DD. He was heading toward me kiting away from HE spam. When I was engaged by the Mino, i tried to rush him so the island would block his shots so we were closing on each other. He was a good 2 map squares to the right of my torpedo track when i fired. Nothing was to his left to make him turn right like he did. Honestly I think it was deliberate but if the community consensus is that i'm in the wrong regardless then i'll just have to accept it. I don't agree with it but what else can I do. Thanks for your input.
  5. UncappingBadger

    Opinions on an accidental friendly torp

    I get that, mate. Being pink isn't my issue. My problem is the way i'm instantly to blame for it. I can do everything right but if some muppet lacks the intelligence to check his surroundings every now and again i'm penalised for it. I just don't think its a fair system.
  6. UncappingBadger

    Opinions on an accidental friendly torp

    So i've just had a game in my Harugumo. I got radar'd by an Alaska who couldn't engage me himself, but a minotaur hiding behind an island was able too. I returned fire, began evasive maneuvers and popped torps in his direction, both sides of the island. In the event he decided he was going to pursue. I know its highly unlikely a Mino is going to get torp'd but if you don't fire them they're never going to hit. Anyway, he killed me but obviously my torps don't die with me so they kept going. Now when i launched the torps their path was clear of friendlies and nobody was even remotely close to being hit with them, however after a period of travel time a Kurfurst completely ignored my torpedos and sailed right in to them. I obviously can't see in to the future and predict what another player is going to do and I got my name in pink. To be honest, i couldn't care less. It was an accident and it wasn't like I intentionally went out of my way to torp a friendly ship. I would have been more than happy to apologise to the player I hit but then got called an idiot by the player, then the usual attempt at stat bashing (i hide my stats for that very reason. Stats are not why i play the game, and i don't see why someone should be able to ruin my enjoyment of the game and berate me because they don't like what my stats say). It's not my fault if that player lacks the situational awareness required to make sure he doesn't get himself torpedoed. So my question is this. What's your thoughts on this? I took the time to check for friendlies before torping, and fired them with the understanding at that moment in time no friendlies would get in the way. Am I in the wrong, or did the other play over-react? In addition, do you think the system punishing a player for this kind of accident is fair? Surely the game can recognise where the ship was when i fired and where he was when he got hit and recognise he turned into the torps, not the other way round.
  7. UncappingBadger

    WG - This is how you communicate

    Really? He's on WG's payroll? Can you back this up with actual evidence? According to WG themselves CC's get no monetary compensation for their work. So unless you can back that up i'd retract the statement. I would hate for you to get accused of lying... Show me where it says the Benham will be available for cash and not for an ingame currency like coal or steel. You can't cause they haven't told us and that's my point. How are we supposed to know if it's worth the effort of grinding and throwing away a month of our lives, or if it's not really a big thing if those of the community who are so inclined can just buy it. Was that sarcasm? If it was you need to work on it. That's weak. Every community has whiners, and its natural for everyone to have differing points of view. I'm not suggesting that EVERYONE will agree to everything. I'm saying WG should open the floor to everyone to voice feedback and then take action based on what the MAJORITY want. Really? Wargaming is only interested in selling OP ships? Explain to me exactly how Azuma is overpowered. Last I checked she was a "for sale" ship. Likewise explain to me how the King George, or Atlanta are overpowered? You see, if you had paid any attention instead of trying to be a sarcastic [edited] you would know it has nothing to do with the way WG test ships. I simply want better communication from a company that expects me to spend money with them - Wargaming should be more communicative and transparent in what they are doing. Give us approx timescales in regards to the developing of new features with the usual caveat that its subject to change. Same goes for how ships will be available. I couldn't give a toss if only ST's and CC's get early test versions of ships. But whats the point in giving access to them if any feedback they have is ignored. As you say, its a great strategy if you just want to sell overpowered ships and make lots of money. Not so great for community retention though which provides them with said cash. How many players in say the last 6 months have they lost because of the way they do business? How much potential profit have they lost as a result of those losses? Short term they may make tons of cash, but in the long term they're shooting themselves in the foot by behaving the way they are.
  8. UncappingBadger

    WG - This is how you communicate

    Edit: this might be a longer post than I anticipated but I feel strongly about the issue at hand, and with Notser bringing it up in his video today I decided to voice my frustration! So a lot of people are complaining that Wargamings current efforts to relay information to the community is...well to be polite rubbish. The current situation with the Benham is a prime example. We have no idea what the direction Wargaming is going to take with the ship once the current event is over. We’re still no closer to understanding exactly what they’re trying to achieve with CV gameplay other than make it as frustrating as possible for players on both sides of the coin. A lot of the frustration and anger that a lot of us have could easily be solved by the developer being more transparent in the development process of new ships, and game features/mechanics. Oh sure the CC’s get hints and snippets of information but by the time it reaches the audience at large it’s more Chinese whispers than what was actually said, leading to more confusion and frustration. Guys, you have a great community, who probably know the game better than you do in terms of what works and what doesn’t. Utilise us! You give ships to CC’s for testing but judging by how blatantly bemused Flamuu is about the Slava at the moment you don’t seem to listen to the feedback you’re giving. That, or you just don’t care. A prime example of what I’m talking about can be seen in the attached images. The F18c for DCS has been out a year now but is still classed as early access. New systems are being brought online all the time to create the most comprehensive simulation of the aircraft. Ever. For months the targeting pod the Hornet uses to self designate ground targets has been promised to us. Finally a few weeks back we got told next beta release the TGP should hit public beta for testing. Monday one of the guys came on and said that they’re pushing it back because they didn’t think it was ready. Look at the reaction. I could only get a few posts, but if you look at the post properly you’ll see for yourself people are disappointed but also thankful that the Dev didn’t just go quiet and kept them in the loop. Not one person out of the 15-20 comments I checked flamed the dev for being open and honest. You’ll also see mention that the dev did the whole cloak and daggers thing years ago and I can tell you, it damn near almost cost them their player base! Why can’t you guys do that? Are Russians just incapable of it left over from your communist days, or do you have a massive skeleton in the wardrobe you don’t want us to know about?
  9. UncappingBadger

    Steam login issues post 0.8.3 - anyone else?

    Thank you for your help. This resolved my problem. I did get a response from Wargaming and after they tried blaming steam and passing the buck finally suggested I install their own launcher again. The fact they couldn't just tell me to do this makes me further believe "support" are nothing more than peanut fed monkeys who know nothing about the game they are supposed to know everything about.... Once again, many thanks :)
  10. Hi guys, Just wondering if anyone else is having issues logging into the game via steam since 0.8.3 dropped? I've used Steam for months without any issues after renaming the steam_api.dll so that the game would ask me for my wargaming email and password. However, since the update it's stopped doing that and insists I create a username. I've logged a ticket with Wargaming. I suspect giving my past encounters with them it will end in me still being unable to login, or being told some bull while they dig their heads in the sand and pretend i don't exist. I'm just curious if anyone else has the problem and if anyone's been able to get around/ fix it if they have.
  11. UncappingBadger

    Funny and sad game situations shown with map screenshots.

    Still funny. Was straight on it with torp bombers when I realised you were trying to solo cap 😂😂
  12. Not a bad idea, but you're forgetting one thing. Match Making. How do you guarantee that these AA Destroyers will be in the same games not just as their normal DD counterparts, but with a CV? WG have already said numerous times changes to MM are out when it comes to CV's. Yes i'm aware a DD isn't a CV but this would affect the CV's therefore WG could argue the point and make no changes. Its great having an AA destroyer but if you spec into one specific role and then you can't do that role because of MM, whats the point? CV's are common in games now, but you still get games without them especially at higher tiers. It's something that should be atleast tested. I'm not saying WG should make entirely new ships but take something like the Gearing and mess around with its AA and its health pool (as conceivably these escort DD's would take more fire) to see if its a viable idea in game. If it is, they can develop it further. If not, well at least it was a partial step to trying to make things balanced for everyone concerned. Thanks,
  13. UncappingBadger

    Carrier Upgrades Implacable and Enterprise

    I'm thinking of looking at the skills of my Implacable again but want some advice from someone who know's what he or she is doing. 1 Points: Air Supremacy Direction Center for Fighters Improved Engine Boost Last Gasp 2 Points: Torp Acceleration Adrenaline Rush Improved Engines 3 Points: Survivability Expert Aircraft Armour Modules Air group mod 1 Aircraft engines mod 1 AA Guns mod 1 Attack aircraft mod 2 Concealment system mod 1 I decided to sacrifice stealth for more speed / armour giving how wildly inconsistent AA can be. I figured it would be helpful to be quick and tanky. Is this ok? Suggested changes? I don't feel like its hindering me in anyway but wanting to improve is never a bad thing.
  14. UncappingBadger

    Sensible CV change incoming

    Some ships eat planes, others do very little. I understand that compared to a Worcester or a Mino the Moskva isn't exactly top of the pecking order when it comes to AA. However, mine is spec'd in BFT to help boost its AA defense. Couple that with DefAA against a Midway DB squadron and do you know the result? Exactly 0 planes killed. Despite maneuvering (as much as a moskva can with its rudder shift), random changes in speed, and changing my sector reinforcement to his attack direction, he was able to delete me with 1 squadron for 0 losses. If i was in a T8 cruiser maybe I would accept that as just being an unfortunate result of being bottom tier but it doesn't sit right when you're the same tier. I won't say AA is weak, or that AA is strong because people can argue it both ways. It is however, wildly inconsistent and that is something I think we can all agree on regardless of which side of the fence you sit.
  15. UncappingBadger

    Possible cv spotting idea

    I personally think a change should be made as to what aircraft can actually spot. For example, because generally the rocket squadrons are the quickest they should be able to spot targets for the entire team (maybe with a short delay as with radar - that may be implemented already, i'm not sure). Torpedo and dive bombers only spot for the CV player, or can spot for the entire team but the delay is twice as long between spotting, and it showing for the team. I admit some testing may be required to see which idea is best and if it would actually be viable in terms of gameplay. The biggest problem for me is the 2 CV's have literally not reason to attack each other in the current format. I think they should make CV's actually have a reason to square up to one another. At the moment each CV focuses solely on doing as much damage as possible. They may do a little spotting at the start to get an idea where the biggest threats are, but after that they do what they please to further their own personal damage score. The spotting that comes from that is a happy bonus and not intentional in my view. So, make the fighter aircraft consumable unlimited use, but maybe increase the cooldown slightly to offset this. iChase suggested and I agree that the rocket aircraft should be the only squadron to have the fighters. The fighters also should not be able to spot and should be purely for defensive purposes (which will give DD's a fighting chance). That way if a CV player is so inclined he can dedicate his game to purely countering the enemy CV's moves and forcing a confrontation and taking the heat off the rest of his team. Because of this a system of rewarding this kind of play would need to be thought of to make it worth while to compensate for the lack of damage / kills you would inevitably have. My thought is to give XP for each plane shot down. In addition an algorithm could be implemented that checks if those fighters were in support of friendly ships and add additional XP. The amount of XP would need to be tested and tweaked to balance it of course.
×