Jump to content

DeltaTigerX

Players
  • Content Сount

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    11992
  • Clan

    [HEROS]

About DeltaTigerX

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. DeltaTigerX

    AMD FideltyFX Super Resolution support?

    Thanks for this info! I didn't know this existed.
  2. Hey guys, I've recently upgraded to a 4K monitor, mainly for productivity, but since it's my main monitor, I also game on it. My graphics card is only a GTX 1050Ti & paired with an i5, 8gb RAM & an SSD, it struggled greatly when I tried running WoWS at native 4K. Does anyone know what the minimum spec required for 4K on wows is? I've scaled down to 1440p to achieve 60fps but can't help notice how crap it looks on the 4K panel. I understand that my system isn't really capable of 4K gaming, but with AMD FSR, it doesn't have to be. I am able to run Anno 1800, with official FSR support, at high settings in FSR 4K and even GTA V with a community made FSR mod, runs great at max in 4K. I asked player support if they had any plans to update the game with FSR, and they replied that it wasn't in game currently and may be added in a future update. Given how simple it seems to implement and its wide support for all GPUs, even mine that nVidia's own DLSS does not support, FSR seems to be a win-win. Does anyone know of a community mod that adds FSR support to wows? If any devs read this post, could you share some info on if and when this feature maybe implemented into the game? Cheers!
  3. DeltaTigerX

    Important message for the community

    A very much necessary and not a bad update from the developers. All the points covered seem to be steps in the right direction if they are actually delivered. And I am willing to give you the benefit of doubt after reading this well though out post. I would also like to add that Steel/coal ships should be refundable in their currencies if nerfed. I myself have spent real money during dockyards to earn steel despite the dockyard shop itself being of no interest to me. I am not going ask for the doubloons or cash refunds, but the steel I spent on FDR must be returned if it is nerfed, similar to thundered and stalingrad. I completely agree with you nerfing them as they as brokenly overpowered, but we players should be able to make a purchase knowing that you won't nerf them in the future to make us buy new premiums. These ships were sold without the "we may nerf this in the future" disclaimer after all. Please offer the refund option for these ships.
  4. Called it. And what's more, this time, you didn't even admit that you are in the wrong. I stopped buying premiums when you started putting "We will nerf this in the future so that you have a need to purchase the new premiums available then" in the description. And you just keep giving me more reasons to stop giving money to you. Keep up the great work!
  5. Yes, admirable that you have taken the time to let us know. Now, lets us wait for the WG community team's reply.
  6. Again, I know that. But why okhotnik? why not kamikaze?
  7. I believe that the problem here is not in WG failing to tell us, rather, why certain destroyers do not get ASW.
  8. It seems pretty clear that leaving out only Okhotnik out while all other T5 DDs get DCs is a direct nerf. The game environment is changing, but only for one amongst the T5 DDs. I seem to recall a similar situation for Blyskawica when stealth firing was removed from the game. The ship was nerfed owing to a "game-environment change" and years later, continues to be mediocre. So you can understand my skepticism when you say that submarines aren't meant as nerfs to strong premiums and that you will continue to make changes where necessary. Would I be right in suspecting that Okhotnik might be available for coal or perhaps as one of the short list ships for containers in the future? Musashi, JB & Thunderer are also notably lacking any form of counterplay against submerged targets. Could you perhaps share further details on why these ships necessitate omission of ASW besides them being strong performers at their tier? I do not mean to sound harsh, but I assure you, if you can tell us the details of your reasoning, I would be glad to try and understand it no matter how complex the reason might be. It would also be an insight into the balancing process which will prevent community discontent in the future when you perform said changes.
  9. DeltaTigerX

    WG's approach to community relations

    To be honest, I don't think WG will care. They'll just pretend to not notice as they always do. But I just could not take it any longer, that's why I came up to the forums to do my part. When they claimed that they're bringing missouri back as a gift to the community on VJ day I was skeptical, and just as expected, they downgrade the exisiting owners and force you to gamble to get it. Absolutely despicable conduct! Even charging a slight premium over the other T9s and claiming that the ship is historical would be miles better. At least you are transparent. Do you have no sense of integrity WG? Do you think that we players are such simpletons? So we should be honored that you give us the priviliege of gambling our money so that we can get a historical ship?
  10. Are you planning submarines a game-wide nerf for ships that you feel are too strong?
  11. Rant Warning! As a long term player of WoWS, I have seen the company develop over the life of this game. Their strong monetization practices are nothing new, when the game launched, the price of one Tier 8 premium ship was much more than entire AAA title. I understood that this game warranted a premium and was willing to pay that price since it was the go-to naval warfare game back them, and continues to be till date. Looking back in history, the PR disasters that WG faces constantly today were very occasional and if one did occur, the response from WG was much better than the standard "We apologize for the miscommunication, we will work hard to ensure it doesn't happen again" response that I have come to expect today. In any issue that does not directly impact the monetization practices, I now expect WG to assign as little resources as possible to remedy it. I am not a hardcore player by any means, but there are so many problems in game right now that pose serious problems to gameplay and must be remedied as soon as possible, but there is not even a rough timeline as to when they might be. 1. The zoom out aiming bug 2. Torpedos launched while turning not going where they are aimed 3. Shells bouncing off angled funnels and into the citadel of heavily armored ships 4. Underwater terrain hitboxes beaching ships and blocking torpedos with no warnings. Even the torpedo firing indicator doesn't show the blocks. While these show no signs of being corrected anytime soon, WG is pumping so much resources into submarines and new premium ship development. Back when they announced a possible nerf to the Giulio Cesare and offered doubloon refunds, the playerbase highlighted the issue of Doubloons being pretty worthless as premium currency in game owing to what little uses they had. WG immediately made all premium ships available in the armory to remedy this situation (with a nice mark up to ensure the discount coupon didn't lose them money). The new dockyard system looks nice, but it is something that only players willing to spend money on the build can enjoy, also, since it is only once per ship you buy, it does not have much replay value. They test so many new game modes, but none of them ever come into the game. WG wants us to buy a premium ship, play it for a few weeks, get bored of them in random battles and spend more money on the next new premium, this is the reason why I believe that none of the new game modes they test will ever make it into the game. (How long has it been since they first announced the arms race mode?) These practices don't bother me so much, but they are also decreasing the value of products purchased earlier in the game for existing players and offering them new stuff to extract more money. Strong performing ships that were removed from the store have been progressively made worse. (Examples - IFHE rework, smoke firing penalty on Kutuzov, stealth firing removal on Blyska, AA nerf on Atlanta, the list goes on). They made AA powerhouses obsolete after the CV rework and are now adding new AA heavy ships. Now a new set of nerfs with regards to the ASW incapability of Musashi, JB, Thunderer etc. WG is resorting to, no other way to put it really, bait-and-switch tactics of selling new ships, introducing them very strong, creating artificial scarcity, then nerfing them so that people will buy the new set of strong ships being released. Nerfing the Missouri's credit earning and claiming the mission will remain permanent (we all know how that went for the UU's) is just a reiteration of the aforementioned point. As a veteran player of WoWS, I know that WG will do whatever they want and community reactions mean very little to them, history has shown us that in multiple occasions. In fact, I expect all new content being announced to have a deep and less than ethical monetization scheme behind it. (loot boxes, random bundles, commander rework, NTC etc.). Why does WG continue to claim that player feedback is important, when they have shown us, time and again, that it is worth nothing to them unless it has to do with monetization? I am not going to tell them to give players better value, they won't, since that's not what businesses do. But I would prefer it if WG owns up to its practices instead of pretending to be the good guy, while their schemes will be despised, they would at least be credible. Don't promise something when you aren't planning to live up to it, and please don't lie to your playerbase (Sub_octavian's reddit posts are quite a fun read now!).
×