|
So, what's to stop me from taking a sampling of screenshots already submitted, and post them as my own for the contest? I don't see any identifying info on the screenshots itself, so short of them catching me (unlikely with the amount of posts), what am I missing in my amazing plan?
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
Nothing really, unless the people doing it are paying very close attention which I doubt they are. I looked over my old screenshots for ones I could use if I just could not get that letter but never ended up having to use any.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Daylen Drazzi posted:Finally got my last A, now I just need an E and my set is complete. I'm still hunting my last E. Getting real tempted to just try to photshop one in. I've seen exactly 3 E names in about 15 matches today. Except I'm terrible at photoshop, and it'd end up being a big red MSPaint E painted over the original.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
I just searched for marblehead codes on ebay, and people are selling them for almost $30 dollars, really? Welp if i knew i could get $30 for each of my pax codes, i'd have sold them instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
I'm still not getting what brought about this retarded change. Of all the things I'd be hoping for a fix to, this is not even remotely on it.quote:JAPAN: Glancing through the stats for both sides, the only place IJN ships seem to have a noticeably greater chance to set fire is in destroyers, with 10% for IJN ones vs. 5%(which I don't believe for a second) for US ones. And IJN ones have never been the ones I'm concerned about covering me with fires. Hell, the Mogami only has a 10% chance with its 155s as opposed to the Cleveland having a 12% chance with 152s. I suppose they're technically correct as IJN 152s have a 15% chance of causing fire, except that the only ship that carries them as primary weapons is the Chikuma, and I don't think I've ever heard complaints about that ship being OP. BBs shells on both sides seem to have generally the same fire chance as well, with North Carolina and Iowa actually having a decently HIGHER chance than the larger bore guns carried by their counterparts. Hell, even Yamato only has a 1% advantage over Montana, despite the much larger guns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:Just as an fyi for the Murmansk's scout plane... I've had it engage bombers before. I don't know why, but it has. May be a bug, but the bastard can panic a TB squad and slow them down for your fairly robust close range AA to shred. All Scout Planes do this if you select the air group you want and they get close enough, it is hilarious and has definitely saved my life before on multiple occasions when some Jap CV was trying to hit me at cross 45 degree bow angle spreads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Devorum posted:tempted to just try to photshop one in  looks legit, yeah? just hit him, dood
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
all done, try tier 2 matches for Es, I ran into 4 guys looking for a D to finish me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
DurosKlav posted:Yayyyyyyyy YAY   Now that I have the Montana its going to take forever to actually outfit the drat thing with modules. As I finished leveling the Pensacola and sell it to buy my shiny new Montana I cant help but think thats theres no real reason to go up the US cruiser line past the Cleveland. I cant think of anything really about the line that makes it stand out compared to the Japanese cruiser line outside of its AA. If I'm in the Iowa and there's a Myoko on one side of me and a Baltimore on the other I'm shooting at the Myoko 99% of the time over the Baltimore even though the Baltimore is 2 tiers higher. US cruisers just seem to lack anything that makes me afraid of them over the Japanese. Please someone whos played the New Orleans and beyond a reason for me to prioritize US cruisers over Japanese. What do US cruisers have that the Japanese dont? DurosKlav fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Awful Company posted:Furutaka: Increased the rate of fire and the main battery traverse speed loving finally. Also: Stupid poo poo posted:Omaha: Increased the firing range for the top hull (C) of the cruiser Omaha (the same increase is applied to Murmansk) Murmansk getting a buff. Moreso: Not so stupid poo poo posted:Implemented a "mirror balance" for aircraft carriers in terms of their number and tier in almost all cases (except for extremely rare occasions when the waiting time in queue is longer than the maximum time allowed) Well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
The only potential issue I'm seeing with carrier mirror matching is how is it going to interact with divisions? Like, what happens if someone divisions a Yamato with a Langley? Does some other random Langley/Hosho captain get hosed? Does the Yamato get put in a low tier match? What?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
So I heard they won't sell Tirpitz for a while in NA server 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
I'm getting really loving tired of T8+ CVs one shotting my Iowa with their billion loving undodgeable torpedoes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Durendal posted:I'm getting really loving tired of T8+ CVs one shotting my Iowa with their billion loving undodgeable torpedoes. Don't you know? If you just hit A and D sometimes you'll avoid the torpedoes dropped on you from all angles at .8km! It's simple. It's cruisers who are overpowered. gently caress CVs forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
It's funny how they are giving them more planes as well, which is a buff and makes suicide runs better. I don't think this game will survive for long unless they make some drastic changes, reducing plane spotting range to something stupid like 1km might be unrealistic but it would make the CVs more dependant on their teams. Just like in WoT where arty needs a spotter. Or just remove CV altogether, I certainly wont miss them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Limit each CV to a max of one Torpedo bomber squadron. - Fixed
Tank Boy Ken fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
So the reason for not adding submarines is "We don't know how to balance them", unlike carriers which they've certainly got a good grasp of. Re-bought a St. Louis just so I can possibly get an occasional carrier-free game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
IPCRESS posted:So the reason for not adding submarines is "We don't know how to balance them", unlike carriers which they've certainly got a good grasp of. Uhh, well, you see, carriers aren't balanced? What sort of engaging gameplay would submarines offer that DD's don't already?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:Uhh, well, you see, carriers aren't balanced? What sort of engaging gameplay would submarines offer that DD's don't already? Well, you'd be like a destroyer with slower than US BB speed and no defense if you're caught surfaced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Just give the russian submarine an ability that makes them sing the USSR anthem, instantly detected by everybody on the map but twice as fast and dealing double damage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:Just give the russian submarine an ability that makes them sing the USSR anthem, instantly detected by everybody on the map but twice as fast and dealing double damage. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
Just have AI-controlled submarines spawn in and launch torps at carriers whenever they're getting more than a few kilometers away from the rest of their team.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Just have AI-controlled submarines spawn in and launch torps at carriers whenever they're getting more than a few kilometers away from the rest of their team. maybe they need to add xp for defending a team mate from enemy torp bombers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:Uhh, well, you see, carriers aren't balanced? What sort of engaging gameplay would submarines offer that DD's don't already? None whatsoever. Much like carriers. Which was the total extent of the joke. ETA: I'm not as funny as I thought. I'm trying to say "Carriers should not be in the game for the same reason that submarines should not be in this game". IPCRESS fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
Aesis posted:Wait, is this Hunt for Red October reference? Of course it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsC2ETsZL0g
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
Had a pubby give our CV this bit of lovely advice last night. "Carrier, stay exactly where you are". I got made fun of for pointing out the terrible advice. Of course, the enemy CV sent its TBs directly to that position and murdered our CV. 
Devorum fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
My favorite bad CV advise ever was when I pointed out to an Independence that a moving target was more difficult to hit, and he responded with "This ship only goes 16 knots, not like I can outrun anything"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
God drat, 4 gig patch. Are all patches this big? Also what do I have to do with the modpack once the servers come up?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
Raged posted:God drat, 4 gig patch. Are all patches this big? Also what do I have to do with the modpack once the servers come up?  e: New torpedo for Sims is whopping 9.2 km range and reload is about 1 minute but only 49 knots speed. Also damage is only 8.5k. You have to be dumb to get hit by it 
Aesis fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
IPCRESS posted:So the reason for not adding submarines is "We don't know how to balance them", unlike carriers which they've certainly got a good grasp of. The reason is not that they can't balance submarines, the reason is that the whole idea of submarines fighting warships is really really stupid. Submarine warfare was effective because they went after the supply lines instead of getting trashed by the ships that have more than enough countermeasures against them. They are slow, have a very limited ROF and people should just stop demanding them to be included.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
So the patch gave tier 6+ IJN carriers 3 fighter squadrons. They still retain one TB squad. With the defensive AA fire ability added to more ships there is absolutely no reason to play US carriers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
3,000,000 credits when you login... thanks Rank 9.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Junkozeyne posted:The reason is not that they can't balance submarines, the reason is that the whole idea of submarines fighting warships is really really stupid. Submarine warfare was effective because they went after the supply lines instead of getting trashed by the ships that have more than enough countermeasures against them. They are slow, have a very limited ROF and people should just stop demanding them to be included. Why do people keep trying to throw realism around in an arcade game anyways? They said the same stuff about submarines in Navy Field, and then they turned out to be the most entertaining thing to happen to that game in forever when they came out. Managing your air ( which determined how long you could stay under ), carefully picking your route, etc, and getting in real close to poo poo all over the biggest ship you could find was fantastic when it worked out. It was also really funny when you'd mess up, run out of air, and surface in front of the entire enemy team. Every ship would drop what they were doing to shoot the hell out of you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Junkozeyne posted:The reason is not that they can't balance submarines, the reason is that the whole idea of submarines fighting warships is really really stupid. Submarine warfare was effective because they went after the supply lines instead of getting trashed by the ships that have more than enough countermeasures against them. They are slow, have a very limited ROF and people should just stop demanding them to be included. I'd say the larger issue is that submarines are entirely about invisible ships with huge alpha damage. That's pretty much the definition of difficult to balance and terribly unfun to play against. Carriers could be balanced in a number of ways. Torp bombers could be fixed simply by increasing the arming distance on torps or dramatically increasing their turn radius to make attack runs require time to adjust after a ship maneuvers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Aesis posted:So I heard they won't sell Tirpitz for a while in NA server Is there a reason why? I hadn't planned on buying the package deal so hopefully they come out with just the ship in NA first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Subs would give US DDs something to do. ASW is a lot of fun as long as you dodge your own depth charges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:Why do people keep trying to throw realism around in an arcade game anyways? They said the same stuff about submarines in Navy Field, and then they turned out to be the most entertaining thing to happen to that game in forever when they came out. Managing your air ( which determined how long you could stay under ), carefully picking your route, etc, and getting in real close to poo poo all over the biggest ship you could find was fantastic when it worked out. Because at some point you have to be at least somewhat accurate to what a type of ship can and can't do. What people want is not a submarine but a submersible destroyer and the very concept of that is just stupid and unfun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
I was really looking forward to the Kongo but it just took me the better part of 5 minutes to kill a stationary low health Tenryu And then all my shells missed the Furutaka that conveniently beached itself broadsided to me at 8km I think I'm done with battleships, this is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
First 100k damage with New Orleans    
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
Easiest CV fix is to make it an option to opt-out of CV games in the match maker. Carriers (and their friends) can go play together in one match making and everyone else can play together in another. Done!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:01
|
|
