hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 259 of 271 FirstFirst ... 159209249256257258259260261262269 ... LastLast
Results 5,161 to 5,180 of 5401

Thread: World of Warships

  1. #5161

    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Unsubbed
    Posts
    732
    Played the Fletcher.
    Played it from stock.
    First 3 games were terrible BB teams, which didn't rock.
    Then I said fuck it.
    Ground the hull.
    Then the torps.
    Now I'm in love.
    WoT: Birkovic

    Nerf rock. Paper is working as intended.
    - Scissor

  2. #5162

    Join Date
    November 4, 2012
    Posts
    318
    Well last few weeks are leading to ever more one sided games far too often which is bloody frustrating.

    I give you some of the highlights of this frustration:

    Games where I've outperformed everyone and still lost:
      Spoiler:





    This one doesn't quite fulfill the criteria but you'll see why I'm annoyed when you see my XP on a losing game:
      Spoiler:



    oh and just to top it all off getting triple citadelled by BM at range that I couldn't see whilst trying to kite a Yama...
      Spoiler:




    Oh and I saw Hogg valiantly trying to kill me in a Indi whilst I was in my Farragut. Hogg was doing a good job but his team of high tier BBs and other cruisers mainly camped. Was good fighting you Hogg!

    P.S. Sorry about torping that Mahan you were trying to support
    Last edited by Aranial; June 19 2017 at 10:15:19 PM.

  3. #5163
    Hoggbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 16, 2013
    Posts
    2,193
    I've had a 3 day string of worthless teams

    Didnt recognize you there, but yes you and the other farragut played well, my mahan and benson was about as useful as the rest of the team, meaning not at all.

  4. #5164

    Join Date
    November 4, 2012
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoggbert View Post
    I've had a 3 day string of worthless teams

    Didnt recognize you there, but yes you and the other farragut played well, my mahan and benson was about as useful as the rest of the team, meaning not at all.
    I play under the name Isitari. .

    Sent from my SM-N915FY using Tapatalk

  5. #5165
    Dahak's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Chelyabinsk-40
    Posts
    5,346


    Seems that turtleback battleships finally actually suffer the downsides of their armor plan, since plunging fire doesn't really exist in this game. Still, nuking a battleship out of existence from full health in one blast is not cool.

    And Wargaming in response:

    Hi everyone, please let me clarify this stuff a bit
    1. AP bombs are in testing, everything is subject to change (including the following info).
    2. Designed as anti-BB weapon especially anti-camping-not-turning-BB weapon - will overpen DDs and cruisers with regular AP shell rules (tiny damage). Will arm at BB decks (and Moskva, oops), can hit citadel or hit casemate, if it does not penetrate main deck. Counterplay: maneuver and AA spec. And teaming with cruisers
    3. Planned to be a choice (through modules), not forcing this.
    4. Planned to be a thing for regular mid/high tier USN CVs - not planned to be Enterprise gimmick. Enterprise right now is a test machince for production - she allows us to check this weapon in real meta, with no harm.
    5. Fine tuning - to be done. "Making CVs better for average players" - partially planned, this is a part of CV problem. CV skilled players perform well as they are. Will probably be balanced between a no-brainer (not desirable) and very hard to use.

    Cheers!
    https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWars...to_us/diwf2bf/

  6. #5166

    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Unsubbed
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by Dahak View Post
    2. Designed as anti-BB weapon especially anti-camping-not-turning-BB weapon - will overpen DDs and cruisers with regular AP shell rules (tiny damage). Will arm at BB decks (and Moskva, oops), can hit citadel or hit casemate, if it does not penetrate main deck. Counterplay: maneuver and AA spec. And teaming with cruisers
    Is this like how the old arty in WoT counters camping by of course shooting the guys, which are spotted the most, i.e. the unicums and teals working the front of the lines?
    Considering how many BB players currently are hesitant to push in, I don't grasp how planes with AP bombs will motivate them to be more aggressive, because pushing often results in less AA cover. It's nice that they haven't learned this lessons after all those years of arty in WoT. I guess we are playing different games.
    Last edited by TheHenni; June 20 2017 at 07:16:53 AM.
    WoT: Birkovic

    Nerf rock. Paper is working as intended.
    - Scissor

  7. #5167
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    10,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Dahak View Post


    Seems that turtleback battleships finally actually suffer the downsides of their armor plan, since plunging fire doesn't really exist in this game. Still, nuking a battleship out of existence from full health in one blast is not cool.

    And Wargaming in response:

    Hi everyone, please let me clarify this stuff a bit
    1. AP bombs are in testing, everything is subject to change (including the following info).
    2. Designed as anti-BB weapon especially anti-camping-not-turning-BB weapon - will overpen DDs and cruisers with regular AP shell rules (tiny damage). Will arm at BB decks (and Moskva, oops), can hit citadel or hit casemate, if it does not penetrate main deck. Counterplay: maneuver and AA spec. And teaming with cruisers
    3. Planned to be a choice (through modules), not forcing this.
    4. Planned to be a thing for regular mid/high tier USN CVs - not planned to be Enterprise gimmick. Enterprise right now is a test machince for production - she allows us to check this weapon in real meta, with no harm.
    5. Fine tuning - to be done. "Making CVs better for average players" - partially planned, this is a part of CV problem. CV skilled players perform well as they are. Will probably be balanced between a no-brainer (not desirable) and very hard to use.

    Cheers!
    https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWars...to_us/diwf2bf/
    [*]Designed as anti-BB weapon especially anti-camping-not-turning-BB weapon - will overpen DDs and cruisers with regular AP shell rules (tiny damage). Will arm at BB decks (and Moskva, oops), can hit citadel or hit casemate, if it does not penetrate main deck. Counterplay: maneuver and AA spec. And teaming with cruisers
    nope, not happening, here's what will happen either A : nobody will take the fucking things because you fuck-wits under-tuned the damage and it means nobody is trading their general-purpose destroyer killer squadrons to get AP bombs or B: it's going to punish the people who try to play marginally aggressively even harder because re-aligning the attack takes all of one click and the turn-rate of battleships in particular is abysmal, and people pushing in spend more time spotted thus they are more likely to attract the flies, so it's going to have the opposite effect entirely.

    meanwhile, the face-first-full-reverse brigade is going to be largely unaffected because they tend to sit fairly close so they have mutually supporting AA envelopes, moreover you have yet to address the whole "nobody is playing high tier carriers!" in the first place.

    [*]Planned to be a thing for regular mid/high tier USN CVs - not planned to be Enterprise gimmick. Enterprise right now is a test machince for production - she allows us to check this weapon in real meta, with no harm.
    yea, just like the Tier 7 Saipan with tier 9 planes totes didn't harm the tier 7 carrier meta, right ? remind us how those win rates look again, please.

    also, i dont buy the whole "will totes overpen guys!" because of the layered nature of many ships super-structure, much like you're supposed to overpen destroyers in your battleship, except that you get actual fucking pens on them from about tier 6 due to the way angling the ships work.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  8. #5168
    Madner Kami's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,978
    Quote Originally Posted by TheHenni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dahak View Post
    2. Designed as anti-BB weapon especially anti-camping-not-turning-BB weapon - will overpen DDs and cruisers with regular AP shell rules (tiny damage). Will arm at BB decks (and Moskva, oops), can hit citadel or hit casemate, if it does not penetrate main deck. Counterplay: maneuver and AA spec. And teaming with cruisers
    Is this like how the old arty in WoT counters camping by of course shooting the guys, which are spotted the most, i.e. the unicums and teals working the front of the lines?
    Considering how many BB players currently are hesitant to push in, I don't grasp how planes with AP bombs will motivate them to be more aggressive, because pushing often results in less AA cover. It's nice that they haven't learned this lessons after all those years of arty in WoT. I guess we are playing different games.
    This is more pronounced the higher the tier gets and you can get away with it in the lower tiers, but, as a carrier you will always try to attack a target that is on it's own. Single-ship AA is generally already too powerful starting at T6 and attacking targets with even vaguely overlapping AA-zones is suicide. I had single Bayerns eradicate entire Indipendence dive bomber CAGs before they got to drop their load (without wasting time on loitering).

    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    nope, not happening, here's what will happen either A : nobody will take the fucking things because you fuck-wits under-tuned the damage and it means nobody is trading their general-purpose destroyer killer squadrons to get AP bombs or B: it's going to punish the people who try to play marginally aggressively even harder because re-aligning the attack takes all of one click and the turn-rate of battleships in particular is abysmal, and people pushing in spend more time spotted thus they are more likely to attract the flies, so it's going to have the opposite effect entirely.
    Battleship turn rates are not abysmal, especially and in particular versus manually dropped dive attacks and automated drops are a waste of time in 90% of the cases. Also, in general, torpedo drops are much more dangerous to DDs than bombs, especially and in particular when it comes to attacking angry smokes. This is also one of the reasons why taking manual drops away would be the dumbest thing they could ever do and is the dumbest thing they ever did to low tier carriers.

    "If you get shot up by an A6M Reisen and your plane splits into pieces - does that mean it's divided by Zero?" - xoxSAUERKRAUTxox

    "A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for. Sail out to sea and do new things." - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper

  9. #5169
    Dahak's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Chelyabinsk-40
    Posts
    5,346
    I'm not so concerned about annihilating cruisers, the bombs require a plate of a certain thickness to arm at all (70mm, I believe) and can pass through any number of thinner plates and stay inert. Pretty sure it's only Moskva that has to worry and I believe that's on the "must be adjusted" short list anyway.

    Everything else, though, worries me.

  10. #5170
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    10,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Madner Kami View Post
    Battleship turn rates are not abysmal, especially and in particular versus manually dropped dive attacks and automated drops are a waste of time in 90% of the cases. Also, in general, torpedo drops are much more dangerous to DDs than bombs, especially and in particular when it comes to attacking angry smokes. This is also one of the reasons why taking manual drops away would be the dumbest thing they could ever do and is the dumbest thing they ever did to low tier carriers.
    they are once you hit tier 7-8 where the Face-front-full-reverse thing becomes possible and thus the typical meta, the amount of adjustment required to hit a manuvering Iowa with your divebombers compared to a stationary one is neglible.

    manual drops at low tiers where flat out too powerful, nobody have meaningful AA at tiers 3-5 so it was basically just "the carrier gets to delete whoever they want" much like the beta, i know seal-clubbing was fun but it was also driving away the possible customers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dahak View Post
    I'm not so concerned about annihilating cruisers, the bombs require a plate of a certain thickness to arm at all (70mm, I believe) and can pass through any number of thinner plates and stay inert. Pretty sure it's only Moskva that has to worry and I believe that's on the "must be adjusted" short list anyway.

    Everything else, though, worries me.
    it's 70mm cumulative, so take the Minotaur, that's 13mm on the superstructure, 16mm on the deck and 38mm on the citadel totalling 67mm, so far so good right ?

    so let's just hope bombs dont come in at a angle then, because it doesn't require much for it to fuze.

    oh and the Des Moines has a 90mm citadel splinterdeck, the Hindenburg's 60mm turtleback is going to fire it off as well as is the Zao's 65mm turtledeck, Henri V's 80mm splinterdeck is going to arm as well on it's own so a fair chunk of the high tier cruisers are basically susceptible to these bombs regardless of it being cumulative or not.
    Last edited by Liare; June 20 2017 at 04:02:32 PM.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  11. #5171
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    10,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Dahak View Post
    I'm not so concerned about annihilating cruisers, the bombs require a plate of a certain thickness to arm at all (70mm, I believe) and can pass through any number of thinner plates and stay inert. Pretty sure it's only Moskva that has to worry and I believe that's on the "must be adjusted" short list anyway.

    Everything else, though, worries me.
    i just had a peek at how bad it is, i hope you dont like playing french heavy cruisers, because they are all blessed with a 80mm citadel deck.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  12. #5172
    Madner Kami's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Madner Kami View Post
    Battleship turn rates are not abysmal, especially and in particular versus manually dropped dive attacks and automated drops are a waste of time in 90% of the cases. Also, in general, torpedo drops are much more dangerous to DDs than bombs, especially and in particular when it comes to attacking angry smokes. This is also one of the reasons why taking manual drops away would be the dumbest thing they could ever do and is the dumbest thing they ever did to low tier carriers.
    they are once you hit tier 7-8 where the Face-front-full-reverse thing becomes possible and thus the typical meta, the amount of adjustment required to hit a manuvering Iowa with your divebombers compared to a stationary one is neglible.
    You were just talking about how punishing it would be for, and I quote,

    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    marginally aggressively
    playing players. Back-peddling at 6 knots isn't anywhere remotely agressive gameplay, it is called being defensive or, in the worst cases in the rear, camping. If AP-dive-bombers force battleships to move forward especially and in particular in the higher tiers, then all the more power to them, I say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    manual drops at low tiers where flat out too powerful, nobody have meaningful AA at tiers 3-5 so it was basically just "the carrier gets to delete whoever they want" much like the beta, i know seal-clubbing was fun but it was also driving away the possible customers.
    All they had to do, was increase the arming distance of manual drops, not hit manual attacks with a sledgehammer that is disrupting gameplay and the learning curve.

    "If you get shot up by an A6M Reisen and your plane splits into pieces - does that mean it's divided by Zero?" - xoxSAUERKRAUTxox

    "A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for. Sail out to sea and do new things." - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper

  13. #5173
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    10,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Madner Kami View Post
    Back-peddling at 6 knots isn't anywhere remotely agressive gameplay, it is called being defensive or, in the worst cases in the rear, camping. If AP-dive-bombers force battleships to move forward especially and in particular in the higher tiers, then all the more power to them, I say.
    the adjustment required to hit say a Iowa going 6kt reverse and full rudder and a Iowa going 28-30kt and full rudder to one side is marginal, a battleship far-forward is more likely to be chosen as the target as it's A: closer and B : less likely to be in a position to receive AA support. so it's not going to force them to move forward, it's going to encourage even more rear-line huddling-in-a-AA-ball-of-doom.

    unless the bombs hit like fucking firecrackers, in that case it's business as usual since nobody would be dumb enough to take them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madner Kami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    manual drops at low tiers where flat out too powerful, nobody have meaningful AA at tiers 3-5 so it was basically just "the carrier gets to delete whoever they want" much like the beta, i know seal-clubbing was fun but it was also driving away the possible customers.
    All they had to do, was increase the arming distance of manual drops, not hit manual attacks with a sledgehammer that is disrupting gameplay and the learning curve.
    no, that's not what they needed to do, because people would still get deleted at the "this is a fun game, but i am not quite invested in it yet" phase. you could double the arming distance and it would make no fucking difference because joe-newbie is still going to get vaporized as the torps arm 2 meters from his hull as he didn't start turning until it became obvious it was a inbound attack-run. it's a change that was carried out to enhance player retention, nothing more.

    simply put, people would play until tier 4, meet a seal-clubbing Langley and flat out quit the game as the 19-point-captain-wanker dropped the torps so close they armed just before impact and quit with a "this is bullshit" impression.

    at tier 6 people have had two tiers to get used to seeing planes, realize roughly how they work and they also get meaningful AA that may indeed shoot down a plane or two, it lessens the "this is bullshit" factor because it's a escalation of a game mechanic people are familiar with, not a completely new mechanic that, at first impression looks like a "i win, you lose, sucker!" button.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  14. #5174
    Madner Kami's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    the adjustment required to hit say a Iowa going 6kt reverse and full rudder and a Iowa going 28-30kt and full rudder to one side is marginal,
    Wrong. Just dead wrong. A battleship going into a full turn forces you to set up an entirely new drop zone, increasing the loitering time, potential losses or you risk hitting one or no bomb out of your drop. Kaga dive-bombers are somewhat of a difference, given how tiny the drop area is, but otherwise? Manual dive bombings are the micro-management hell of CV-gameplay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    a battleship far-forward is more likely to be chosen as the target as it's A: closer and B : less likely to be in a position to receive AA support. so it's not going to force them to move forward, it's going to encourage even more rear-line huddling-in-a-AA-ball-of-doom.
    A battleship far foward, is a battleship that is fucked anyways. This is not a problem with CV-attacks, this is a (good) result of trying to enforce teamplay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    no, that's not what they needed to do, because people would still get deleted at the "this is a fun game, but i am not quite invested in it yet" phase. you could double the arming distance and it would make no fucking difference because joe-newbie is still going to get vaporized as the torps arm 2 meters from his hull as he didn't start turning until it became obvious it was a inbound attack-run. it's a change that was carried out to enhance player retention, nothing more.

    simply put, people would play until tier 4, meet a seal-clubbing Langley and flat out quit the game as the 19-point-captain-wanker dropped the torps so close they armed just before impact and quit with a "this is bullshit" impression.

    at tier 6 people have had two tiers to get used to seeing planes, realize roughly how they work and they also get meaningful AA that may indeed shoot down a plane or two, it lessens the "this is bullshit" factor because it's a escalation of a game mechanic people are familiar with, not a completely new mechanic that, at first impression looks like a "i win, you lose, sucker!" button.
    What the flying fuck are you blathering about? I was talking about increasing the arming distance of a manual drop and you blather something about dropping torps 2m away from a target ship. Either you do not understand what arming distance is or... I dunno what you have in mind, seriously. Forcing carrier-torps to be dropped from further away, allows targets to have a longer reaction- and realization-time. That is all that was needed, precisely to not allow drops from 2m away.

    "If you get shot up by an A6M Reisen and your plane splits into pieces - does that mean it's divided by Zero?" - xoxSAUERKRAUTxox

    "A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for. Sail out to sea and do new things." - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper

  15. #5175
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,365
    If carriers were actually super strong, all anyone would do is blob up. And every random battle's outcome would be about the blunt use of DPM and focus fire. No angles, no backcapping, no indepedent play, just shooty the other team until they dead. That's only 'teamplay' in the most braindead retarded sense

  16. #5176
    Madner Kami's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,978
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    If carriers were actually super strong, all anyone would do is blob up. And every random battle's outcome would be about the blunt use of DPM and focus fire. No angles, no backcapping, no indepedent play, just shooty the other team until they dead. That's only 'teamplay' in the most braindead retarded sense
    If that is refering to what I said, then I would like to see the exact point where I said, that I want carriers to be "super strong". Can we try to actually discuss without constructing straw-mans?

    "If you get shot up by an A6M Reisen and your plane splits into pieces - does that mean it's divided by Zero?" - xoxSAUERKRAUTxox

    "A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for. Sail out to sea and do new things." - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper

  17. #5177
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    10,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Madner Kami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    the adjustment required to hit say a Iowa going 6kt reverse and full rudder and a Iowa going 28-30kt and full rudder to one side is marginal,
    Wrong. Just dead wrong. A battleship going into a full turn forces you to set up an entirely new drop zone, increasing the loitering time, potential losses or you risk hitting one or no bomb out of your drop. Kaga dive-bombers are somewhat of a difference, given how tiny the drop area is, but otherwise? Manual dive bombings are the micro-management hell of CV-gameplay.
    the difference is, at worst, 5-10 seconds, it doesn't matter for all intents and purposes, indeed considering the circle difference between manual and auto drop (roughly 10% for these) it's barely worth it to do the manual drop anyway, just auto-drop and adjust the attack angle to match.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madner Kami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    a battleship far-forward is more likely to be chosen as the target as it's A: closer and B : less likely to be in a position to receive AA support. so it's not going to force them to move forward, it's going to encourage even more rear-line huddling-in-a-AA-ball-of-doom.
    A battleship far foward, is a battleship that is fucked anyways. This is not a problem with CV-attacks, this is a (good) result of trying to enforce teamplay.
    such as sitting in a huddle, bow-on to the enemy reversing ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Madner Kami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    no, that's not what they needed to do, because people would still get deleted at the "this is a fun game, but i am not quite invested in it yet" phase. you could double the arming distance and it would make no fucking difference because joe-newbie is still going to get vaporized as the torps arm 2 meters from his hull as he didn't start turning until it became obvious it was a inbound attack-run. it's a change that was carried out to enhance player retention, nothing more.

    simply put, people would play until tier 4, meet a seal-clubbing Langley and flat out quit the game as the 19-point-captain-wanker dropped the torps so close they armed just before impact and quit with a "this is bullshit" impression.

    at tier 6 people have had two tiers to get used to seeing planes, realize roughly how they work and they also get meaningful AA that may indeed shoot down a plane or two, it lessens the "this is bullshit" factor because it's a escalation of a game mechanic people are familiar with, not a completely new mechanic that, at first impression looks like a "i win, you lose, sucker!" button.
    What the flying fuck are you blathering about? I was talking about increasing the arming distance of a manual drop and you blather something about dropping torps 2m away from a target ship. Either you do not understand what arming distance is or... I dunno what you have in mind, seriously. Forcing carrier-torps to be dropped from further away, allows targets to have a longer reaction- and realization-time. That is all that was needed, precisely to not allow drops from 2m away.
    you're missing the point again, it doesn't matter that the arming distance is doubled, you're extending a 4 second reaction window to a 8 second reaction window at best (many-a-newb dont even react before the beeps), big fucking deal for joe newbie who's barely worked out how lead works, he's still going to say bullshit and walk away.

    there was a extensive reddit thread on this subject months ago and new players and thus potential customers that lost interest early in the process almost universally dropped out after hitting tier 4, with a significant chunk of those polled blaming carriers often citing what was in effect manual drops, you might not like that, but that is the reasoning behind that change according to the developers.

    wail and gnash away at it, but that's what they themselves said, incidentally i half-expect manual drops to get the chop once the rebalance hits, but we will see.

    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    If carriers were actually super strong, all anyone would do is blob up. And every random battle's outcome would be about the blunt use of DPM and focus fire. No angles, no backcapping, no indepedent play, just shooty the other team until they dead. That's only 'teamplay' in the most braindead retarded sense
    welcome to the closed beta experience.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  18. #5178
    Selb's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Aldershot, UK
    Posts
    1,307

  19. #5179
    Shaftoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Ships
    Posts
    1,485
    Yamotos are actually quite easy to citadel if they are not bow on to you.

    The problem is that they get full pens if you try to do the same to them

  20. #5180
    Hoggbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 16, 2013
    Posts
    2,193
    Yep, Yamato is essentially an Iowa with better secondaries and worse AA (and bigger guns, but who cares about those).

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •