200 games in - verdict to date

[pjnt]

Hi!

 

First off, it's beta, so nothing here is critical.

 

Criticism first, torps. But I bet once they cost money and the ships have a limited quantitiy, they won't spam the water. Too many team kills from blind shooting masses of torps into unknow water. Again, if you only have 6 reloads and they cost your first born to shoot, this should be OK.

 

Maps could be bigger, but I assume that will change, too. Add weather conditions, to limit sight; which was a big thing in actual naval battles. Fog, rain, snow etc. Cuts down the sight to arms length at times. Couldn't see the bow of the ship from the command deck!

 

Other than that I am remarkably happy with the game. It's not WoT, so this is good because if I want to shoot tanks, I play WoT. It has a similar style/model, but different gameplay. Really looking forward to the next stages!

 

pjnt[-CES-]

 

[MaxxyNL]

Add weather conditions, to limit sight; which was a big thing in actual naval battles. Fog, rain, snow etc. Cuts down the sight to arms length at times. Couldn't see the bow of the ship from the command deck!

 

That would mean people with low spec. computers will suffer massive fps problems.

 

Weather conditions is a good idea, but only if people with low spec. computers can disable it. ^{(but that would not be fair for the people who have it enabled...)}

 

[Figment]

 

6 reloads makes most torp units useless. 6 reloads won't stop a troll from throwing ONE full salvo into a friendly.

 

Stupid and completely ignorant suggestion. Apparently you have no idea how a troll thinks: they don't care about the match, they just want to provoke a reaction. Some trolls throw one or two BB/CA volleys into a DD or CA. I have seen a "friendly" BB fire two broadsides into a CV to kill it claiming it was a "[edited]", I've seen a Cleveland destroy a Kuma, "because this Kuma killed him a few matches earlier with torpedoes which was lame and unfair". And let's not start on ammo limitations never having meant anything in World of Tanks, War Thunder or ANY OTHER GAME EVER with regards to trolling behaviour.

 

Ammo limitations do nothing to change this behaviour, you just want torpedoes nerfed. Don't hide behind a lame argument like "friendly TKs", cause then nobody should have ANY ammo on a BB, CA or CV either.

 

 

 

Bigger maps would lead to more draws. Without a different winning system or much longer match time, maps should be made smaller sooner than bigger. Ships simply don't have the speed to find each other or intercept or stop sudden captures on bigger maps once committed to a side of the map. Hell, getting from A to B on faultline takes ages for some ships.

 

[pjnt]

6 reloads makes most torp units useless. 6 reloads won't stop a troll from throwing ONE full salvo into a friendly.

 

Stupid and completely ignorant suggestion. Apparently you have no idea how a troll thinks: they don't care about the match, they just want to provoke a reaction. Some trolls throw one or two BB/CA volleys into a DD or CA. I have seen a "friendly" BB fire two broadsides into a CV to kill it claiming it was a "[edited]", I've seen a Cleveland destroy a Kuma, "because this Kuma killed him a few matches earlier with torpedoes which was lame and unfair". And let's not start on ammo limitations never having meant anything in World of Tanks, War Thunder or ANY OTHER GAME EVER with regards to trolling behaviour.

 

Ammo limitations do nothing to change this behaviour, you just want torpedoes nerfed. Don't hide behind a lame argument like "friendly TKs", cause then nobody should have ANY ammo on a BB, CA or CV either.

 

 

 

Bigger maps would lead to more draws. Without a different winning system or much longer match time, maps should be made smaller sooner than bigger. Ships simply don't have the speed to find each other or intercept or stop sudden captures on bigger maps once committed to a side of the map. Hell, getting from A to B on faultline takes ages for some ships.

 

lol, dude you got some anger issues to deal with. Using words like "ignorant" and "no idea" pretty much allow me to disregard the rest. Relax and have a twinkie.

 

as for the weather, the low spec systems could easily just grey out areas instead of having rain. Or something that isn't as graphically intensive?

 

[Figment]

lol, dude you got some anger issues to deal with. Using words like "ignorant" and "no idea" pretty much allow me to disregard the rest. Relax and have a twinkie.

 

Anger issues? Not really. I'm just bluntly honest and don't care about your ego or pc-behaviour which intends to protect fragile egoes through "courtesy" when I make a qualification about your argumentation. The way you dismiss the qualification ignorant to go into full denial and avoidance mode and IGNORE your opponent's argumentation shows you only want to listen to what you want to hear. That's even worse, because it means you're deliberately ignorant.

 

It IS ignorant and naive to think trolls change their behaviour based on ammo limitations.

 

It IS therefore stupid to make a suggestion along that line because it won't have any effect.

 

It IS even hypocritical to only target torpedoes for "friendly damage".

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry that you can't handle blunt critique, but it's the truth. You sound like a biased person when it comes to torpedoes. Why aren't you targeting broadsides and limit these to six volleys? I can answer that one for you: because it wouldn't make any sense and wouldn't have any effect other than making the game unplayable. So why do you want to make certain units unplayable exactly?

 

Why do you want many of the low tiers to be done after 24 torpedoes? While at the same time, you would have the most spammy torpedo ship, the Kitakame, fire 240 torpedoes with six volleys?

 

Six volley torpedoes is such an arbitrary number it's just ridiculous.

[pjnt]

 

Anger issues? Not really. I'm just bluntly honest and don't care about your ego or pc-behaviour which intends to protect fragile egoes through "courtesy" when I make a qualification about your argumentation. The way you dismiss the qualification ignorant to go into full denial and avoidance mode and IGNORE your opponent's argumentation shows you only want to listen what you want to hear. That's even worse, because it means you're deliberately ignorant.

 

It IS ignorant and naive to think trolls change their behaviour based on ammo limitations.

 

It IS therefore stupid to make a suggestion along that line because it won't have any effect.

 

It IS even hypocritical to only target torpedoes for "friendly damage".

 

I'm sorry that you can't handle blunt critique, but it's the truth. You sound like a biased person when it comes to torpedoes. Why aren't you targeting broadsides and limit these to six volleys? I can answer that one for you: because it wouldn't make any sense and wouldn't have any effect other than making the game unplayable. But hey. You don't want to face torpedoes because you have a hard time with them, don't you?

 

There is a difference between critique and insult. Google is your friend.

[playarci]

 

as for the weather, the low spec systems could easily just grey out areas instead of having rain. 

 

 

Considering how PC the rest of your post tried to be dont you think that is a touch prejudiced against people who maybe cant afford anything better to run the game on? 

[Figment]

 

There is a difference between critique and insult. Google is your friend.

 

So you're saying you can't handle critique as critique on you where you are told you're ignorant is an insult because you cannot be ignorant.

 

 

You have severe inflated ego issues.

[Blue_Bug]

Hi!

 

First off, it's beta, so nothing here is critical.

 

Criticism first, torps. But I bet once they cost money and the ships have a limited quantitiy, they won't spam the water. Too many team kills from blind shooting masses of torps into unknow water. Again, if you only have 6 reloads and they cost your first born to shoot, this should be OK.

 

Maps could be bigger, but I assume that will change, too. Add weather conditions, to limit sight; which was a big thing in actual naval battles. Fog, rain, snow etc. Cuts down the sight to arms length at times. Couldn't see the bow of the ship from the command deck!

 

Other than that I am remarkably happy with the game. It's not WoT, so this is good because if I want to shoot tanks, I play WoT. It has a similar style/model, but different gameplay. Really looking forward to the next stages!

 

pjnt[-CES-]

 

 

Glad you like the game.

 

At higher levels teamkills by torpedo's rarely happen. The punishment system will take care of the rest. Although it will always be an isue on lower levels. 

 

with six reloads the issue of teamkills will not be solved. The DD's will only shoot there 6 loads and after that they are pretty much useless. Please note that the start levels must be seen as training levels.

 

How higher the tier, how longer the reload times. I'm sure that wetherconditions will enter the game (darkness is also a weathercondition in army terms). 

[pjnt]

 

Glad you like the game.

 

At higher levels teamkills by torpedo's rarely happen. The punishment system will take care of the rest. Although it will always be an isue on lower levels. 

 

with six reloads the issue of teamkills will not be solved. The DD's will only shoot there 6 loads and after that they are pretty much useless. Please note that the start levels must be seen as training levels.

 

How higher the tier, how longer the reload times. I'm sure that wetherconditions will enter the game (darkness is also a weathercondition in army terms). 

 

Thanks for that! You saved my belief in humanity on these forums. Wow.

[Figment]

You're still hurting my belief in humanity though pjnt.

 

Let's go over your "solution" again.

 

1. You assume trolls care about the amount of shots they can fire. False and catastrophic assumption as it is the entire pillar of your argument.

 

2. Rather than targeting and penalizing trolls, you penalize everyone playing a specific unit class, enemy and friendly alike based on an argument regarding "friendly damage". Ergo, you're not after trolls, you're after a unit class. This suggests extreme bias.

 

3. You ignore that there has already been a friendly fire penalty system announced where people with friendly damage will get the inverse damage of the damage they did applied, where they get pink nicknames and are allowed to be shot at by friendlies, where they get removed from the game and some more penalties.

 

4. You make a suggestion that is a "one size fits all" arbitrary wet thumb in the air number, without any basis on in-game need, game time, unit specific design, or other considerations.

 

You have no idea how trolls think, what they care for and why trolls troll in the first place. You don't even care to figure this out, you're just using them to nerf something you seem to have a pet peeve issue with yourself: torpedoes.

 

When confronted with someone declaring your arguments ignorant (based on poor information and causation) and stupid (to be explained as ineffective, gameplay destructive and otherwise) you go in full defense and ignore mode, rather than be critical of yourself. Which I very much doubt you ever are. You're one of those people who doesn't understand that the qualification ignorant, stupid, hypocritical etc of arguments and thought processes aren't insults. They're qualifications. You opt to make them insults, because you want to disagree with the qualifications on a default basis. You absolutely don't care if the qualifications are correctly applied, you just don't want to see them applied on you. That's an inflated ego talking, because you cannot stand that your suggestions and thought process is sub-par in some situation.

[MaxxyNL]

Hi!

 

First off, it's beta, so nothing here is critical.

 

Criticism first, torps. But I bet once they cost money and the ships have a limited quantitiy, they won't spam the water. Too many team kills from blind shooting masses of torps into unknow water. Again, if you only have 6 reloads and they cost your first born to shoot, this should be OK.

 

Maps could be bigger, but I assume that will change, too. Add weather conditions, to limit sight; which was a big thing in actual naval battles. Fog, rain, snow etc. Cuts down the sight to arms length at times. Couldn't see the bow of the ship from the command deck!

 

Other than that I am remarkably happy with the game. It's not WoT, so this is good because if I want to shoot tanks, I play WoT. It has a similar style/model, but different gameplay. Really looking forward to the next stages!

 

pjnt[-CES-]

 

 

+1 given to fix the neg. rep. someone gave you.

[Boomer7]

 

Maps could be bigger, but I assume that will change, too.

 

I would not bet on that.

It is a limit of the Big World engine, same issue as WOT has.

You could only make the maps bigger by changing the scale.

 

Of course making maps where not half of it is inaccessible landmasses ( I look at you New Dawn and Big Race) would also help)

 

[GrumpyWorm]

Please try to leave personal fights and insults OUT of this forum.

If you want to discuss you dont have to agree, but you dont need to insult either.

[Figment]

Please try to leave personal fights and insults OUT of this forum.

If you want to discuss you dont have to agree, but you dont need to insult either.

 

I have not insulted anyone. He takes it as an insult when I negatively qualify his argumentation, assumptions and the quality of thought put into an argument.

 

There's a big difference between an insult and a negative qualification. The first is not only untrue, it is intended to grief the other person, the latter is potentially true (can be verified or disproven) and intended to value judge argumentation.

 

 

 

Please do not fall into the trap of bad debaters that call these qualifications of arguments and thought processes insults against their person. Fact is that arguments can be extremely poor. It might be blunt and non-flattering to a person that they came up with an argument that can be called that, but that doesn't mean it's insulting and it's their own responsibility to prevent such qualifications by making a good post and properly construed argument. If they fail to do so in extreme ways, they call it upon themselves to have their arguments called less than poor.

 

 

EDIT: On the other hand, I guess he did accuse out of the blue regarding "anger issues" regarding a post where I detailed in a quite controlled fashion why I made these value judgments...

[J_Fuller]

Criticism first, torps. But I bet once they cost money and the ships have a limited quantitiy, they won't spam the water. Too many team kills from blind shooting masses of torps into unknow water. Again, if you only have 6 reloads and they cost your first born to shoot, this should be OK.

 

Maps could be bigger, but I assume that will change, too. Add weather conditions, to limit sight; which was a big thing in actual naval battles. Fog, rain, snow etc. Cuts down the sight to arms length at times. Couldn't see the bow of the ship from the command deck!

I don't like your idear of torps... First they do cost money, maybe not so much as they will in the future, but they already have a cost.

second: team kills are already going to have a drastic effect when patch 3.1 comes, also there are limited shoots in WoT, yet that does not keeps team kills from happening, I can't see why that should have an effect here.

 

We have had an big debat on a finit nr of torps on anyone ship... I do not buy the arguments for ei. 6 reloads... Reason being, that for game balance every other ship should have limits to the number of shells, planes and what not, that skould work to the same degree that 6 reloads have on DD's. It is to easy to just see a nr of torps in a battle and then say "we just need to limit the nr of total reloads"... 

 

Regarding maps, I would rather have a few more into the rotation, the size on the current maps are good... Small maps are only in rotation in the low tier battles, and the large maps have a tendensy to draws... New maps, new ways of winning the battles, new locations... But the size is fine

 

[pjnt]

 

+1 given to fix the neg. rep. someone gave you.

 

Cheers, but there seems to be more where that -1 came from! Water off a ducks back. I had an idea and it was taken to an extreme level and a pile of unfounded conclusions resulted. As for "Figment"; he chose an apt name from me at this point.

 

Keyboard worriers.

 

I enjoy they game and will stick to that and people like minded.

 

I'll have a think on the torpedo and map size questions, however, it really doesn't bother me that much. I figure once a torp is on the water, it is "hostile" to everyone. Just need to keep a heads up as best you can. That is why my concern of FF was worded that way. I've been killed and killed a freindly completly by mistake. Take out a ship near an island and one torp goes off into fog only to see 30 seconds later a friendly destroyer go down.

 

Perhaps when there are more maps I will reasses. If many games are ending in draws, then perhaps the time limt could change, or even, I can't believe I am saying it, reduce the map size!

 

Just brainstorming out loud.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Historynerd]

I am not favourable to a proposal to limit torpedo availability; I basically agree with those who say that this would not discourage careless players to just fire them, regardless of the situation and regardless of friendly being close (I'm also talking for when it's unintentional). I would not be against some twerking in their reload times, because, although I'm a mediocre DD player, I can't help but feel that the reload times in lower tiers are way too short, and seems that those that follow have reload times way too long.

[J_Fuller]

 I can't help but feel that the reload times in lower tiers are way too short, and seems that those that follow have reload times way too long.

Agreed, I have the same impression... That and the detection range is somewhat long (from a gameplay point of view)

[Phantombeast]

 

 

I have not insulted anyone. He takes it as an insult when I negatively qualify his argumentation, assumptions and the quality of thought put into an argument.

 

There's a big difference between an insult and a negative qualification. The first is not only untrue, it is intended to grief the other person, the latter is potentially true (can be verified or disproven) and intended to value judge argumentation.

 

 

 

Please do not fall into the trap of bad debaters that call these qualifications of arguments and thought processes insults against their person. Fact is that arguments can be extremely poor. It might be blunt and non-flattering to a person that they came up with an argument that can be called that, but that doesn't mean it's insulting and it's their own responsibility to prevent such qualifications by making a good post and properly construed argument. If they fail to do so in extreme ways, they call it upon themselves to have their arguments called less than poor.

 

 

EDIT: On the other hand, I guess he did accuse out of the blue regarding "anger issues" regarding a post where I detailed in a quite controlled fashion why I made these value judgments...

Looks like someone is in "...full defense and ignore mode, rather than be critical of yourself"

 Sorry dude, but you could have written all you did (and I agree with most of it) without ever raising the question if it was meant as an insult or not, so why didn't you?!

 

 

+1 given to fix the neg. rep. someone gave you.

 

helped a little bit too. There is no need for neg reps here, save it for the really important stuff !

[Figment]

Looks like someone is in "...full defense and ignore mode, rather than be critical of yourself"

 Sorry dude, but you could have written all you did (and I agree with most of it) without ever raising the question if it was meant as an insult or not, so why didn't you?!

 

Defense yes, ignore no. I can be very abrassive, blunt, straightforward and harsh. I know that. The reason I am though is BECAUSE I'm critical of myself. I hold myself to high standards for arguments and suggestions. It doesn't mean I'm always right (though I am prone to being right, because I think before I suggest). I just don't see reason to try subtlety in cases like this, that just causes communication errors. Problem is I have to be defensive in this case because it's a mod we're talking about here and mods don't always have time to see the subtle difference between "insulting an argument" and "insulting a person" if they read a word with a negative connotation to it.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I've been very objective and civil about it. I don't hold myself responsible for qualifying something for what it is. I do hold the person responsible who posted something worthy of such a qualification. I'm quite sure they could do better than post some random crappy argument. But generally they don't want to realise it is a crappy argument, so it has to be pointed out. When you're subtle about it, they tend to think it just needed a little adjustment, but at the core there'd be some intrinsic value or something that "the devs would have to work out in the details", trivialising critique. The next time they'd just post something equally crap because they use no standards or system of argumentation for their suggestions. IMO it's better to just use a sledgehammer if it is just that bad. :/

 

 

Being so direct might be considered rude in some cultures (say... Canadian), I call it straightforward honesty. I rather they know where I stand, especially when I feel strongly about something, than that I hide in subtleties to not bruise their egoes. And that's basically the problem here, people attach themselves to their ideas to the point that if the idea is called bad, they're taking it personal. But to me, that's just a form of immaturity. Get over it, look at the arguments and if someone disagrees with the qualification I gave it, show me wrong. I'll listen to good arguments. I'm just not going to walk on my toes around fragile egoes. They should get some proper safety shoes if their toes get stepped on a lot: like posting a well-thoughtout suggestion. I'd respect that even if I'd disagree. Some of the things stated in the OP though? Don't see any evidence or even hint of a proper design process.

[playarci]

To encapsulate the above argument: your right not to be offended stops where my right to offend you starts.

[Figment]

To encapsulate the above argument: your right not to be offended stops where my right to offend you starts.

 

lol not really.

 

"Your right to be offended starts when someone says something untrue and slanderous about you."

[playarci]

You Sir, have a large streak of chivalry running though you. I on the other hand dont.

[Darlomidge]

Hi!

 

First off, it's beta, so nothing here is critical.

 

Criticism first, torps. But I bet once they cost money and the ships have a limited quantitiy, they won't spam the water. Too many team kills from blind shooting masses of torps into unknow water. Again, if you only have 6 reloads and they cost your first born to shoot, this should be OK.

 

Maps could be bigger, but I assume that will change, too. Add weather conditions, to limit sight; which was a big thing in actual naval battles. Fog, rain, snow etc. Cuts down the sight to arms length at times. Couldn't see the bow of the ship from the command deck!

 

Other than that I am remarkably happy with the game. It's not WoT, so this is good because if I want to shoot tanks, I play WoT. It has a similar style/model, but different gameplay. Really looking forward to the next stages!

 

pjnt[-CES-]

 

 

 

So by giving ships a limited number of torpedo's and putting a price on them you've just effectively rendered the DD and CV classes useless. Bravo