Jump to content

ElectricTuna

Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content Count

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ElectricTuna

  • Rank
    Has Cheese with Whine

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Server
    NA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,227 profile views
  1. I played Steel Ocean shortly after it was released, after not having played warships in a month or so. I can't see myself playing warships any more unless they make significant changes, though I'm not sure I would have regardless. Unfortunately there's a lot of misinformation going around. Just look at the number of players who think sitting still in Steel Ocean battleships improves your accuracy (it does not). Same with premium ammo; it exists, but gives very little benefit. Likewise, it's hard to believe that the people saying it's a warships clone have actually played it. The developers cribbed heavily from the tanks user interface, but there are only so many ways to make this kind of game. It's no more a warships clone than armored warfare is a tanks clone, or warships is a navyfield clone. And really, even if it were a shoddy Chinese ripoff, warships is a substantially worse game than a shoddy Chinese ripoff. Steel Ocean gameplay is much better than warships. There's a lot more to do (without making it a twitch fps or dota click speed contest). Ship classes are better differentiated. The endless fire shit is gone, without making cruisers worthless. There are also more and better game modes, more varied maps, and the maps are better designed. On top of that it has more variable loadouts, more equipment choices, more customization and an actual mission system with meaningful rewards. I don't think it's significantly more of a grind than warships, and matchmaking appears to be +/- 1 so there's not as much forcing you to go up the tiers anyway - tier 3 is a lot of fun. There are some pay to win mechanics but it's certainly nothing like navyfield and really I don't think it's as bad as pre-credit-APCR world of tanks. The game has its problems - awkward UI, mobile game gacha commanders, and iffy class balance to name a few. Also the players make even World of Tanks pubs look fucking brilliant; submarines teamkill so much that it's a viable weapon in game. It's probably less realistic but who gives a shit, warships is already laughably unrealistic and realistic warship driving would be mind numbingly boring not to mention that battleships would be almost completely worthless. Anyway Steel Ocean is already better than warships, and honestly I have a lot easier time believing that Steel Ocean developers will fix their game's problems than that warships developers will fix theirs (not saying much, really).
  2. The Chinese version of WoWS is better than the Wargaming version :dealdog:

  3. Omaha C hull is better. You get something like 14.5 km range with C hull and fire control.
  4. I think it's funny. I ignore list/just close the PM on most of his type, but I can't say no to someone who spent weeks shouting at a wall.
  5. It might not fit the topic as I think it's been almost two months since I ever saw the player in battle, but this shitter has been PMing me nonstop in dock for weeks. I didn't play warships for a few weeks before the RU/DE patch, and when I logged in I saw pages of messages over several days. It looked like the chat system actually cut off the oldest messages. I occasionally copy/paste something into the PM window when I play the game, and without fail I see a wall of responses when I log in. It's all really unoriginal "u mad bro" stuff too. I wonder what that life is like. Also that account has an oddly high win rate considering how little damage it does, I can't remember if it was platooned though.
  6. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPP. The only place where it sort of makes sense is the Russian tier 2/3. Having 5x2 launchers is sort of a disadvantage vs. the 3x3 on the tier 2, because between the firing delay and that obnoxious thing it does where you fire one launcher and then the next one starts rotating to a different angle, it takes a while to get all the torpedoes out. At 3 km the spread is really small anyway, so I think "launches more torpedoes per second" is actually worth something. Other than that, I think I'd take more launchers over larger launchers even without the reload bonus. It gives you more control over the spread and lets you waste fewer torpedoes. It doesn't make sense that a Mutsuki loads so much slower than a Minekaze. The torpedoes are pretty close in damage.
  7. Karlsruhe is impressive. It's not just that it can bounce off interwar cruisers, which would already set it apart from other 6" guns including the guns on the tier 2s. It cannot citadel hit interwar cruisers. I've shot flat Phoenix and Tenryu citadels repeatedly from less than 3 km and it still won't. I'm pretty sure even the Japanese destroyer guns can citadel hit a Tenryu at 3 km. Shooting the bow/stern/battleship superstructure with AP at least deals damage, but even then an enemy cruiser can be shooting you back, even with HE, and doing the same damage as you are at a higher rate of fire. Not to mention the critical hits, fires, longer range, higher speed, more hitpoints and more torpedoes. Still better than Kolberg. But even more confusing. At least Kolberg was better than the other tier 3 cruisers in something, even if it was irrelevant. Karlsruhe is worse than the other tier 4s in every regard. Even from the port statistics it's clearly the worst tier 4. There is, objectively, no reason (besides tree progression) you would ever play a Karlsruhe over either of the other tier 4 cruisers. The free xp cashout is real, I guess.
  8. I don't know who balanced the lower tiers. Dresden is worse than every tier 1 ship, and Kolberg is a Dresden that gains two knots of speed, a few hitpoints and the ability to fire four guns instead of two straight forward, in exchange for seeing up to tier fucking five. After previewing it I want a Konigsberg, but it's hard to justify playing through two tiers of the worst ships in the game. At least it looks cool when you hold left click.
  9. France can do tier 4 through 6 or 7 easily enough, if you don't mind using post-war UK loans. For 8-10 you can invent some battleship conversions. I imagine that'll be how all the nations other than UK look.
  10. The obnoxious and wrong part (which wasn't exclusive to you, I just didn't quote other posters saying it) is "they are trying to make money" and "the game is free so you don't have to spend anything." It has nothing to do with whether it's 'fair' to sell your ships in $80 bundles. It's a business decision, that isn't necessarily the most profitable option and on top of that, arguably makes their video game worse. Bundling your premium items together, pricing them just above the gold package value, selling gift shop only items, etc. all discourage people from spending some money, but encourage people to spend a lot. Also there's a notable difference between high% profit and infinity% profit - you could arguably compare digital videogame sales to certain pharmaceuticals or to movies, but certainly not phones. When your production costs are constant, the only thing that matters is gross revenue. Production is a sunk cost. As far as why your older post got a -1: what the actual fuck I wouldn't have -repped your post if not for that, and I'd -rep any post with that sentiment. Nothing personal. It's not some grand conspiracy, it's Wargaming running their videogame in a way that lessens my enjoyment of it (and thus discourages me from spending money on it) and likely doesn't gain them money. Apart from anything else Wargaming is nowhere near competent enough to run that conspiracy - look at their humble bundle sale. I've never posted on the official forums that I want a Mikasa, nor would I buy one if they sold it (nor do I care if someone else spends their benjamins on an overpriced pixel boat). It's pretty obvious that selling rare or semi-permanently removed premium tanks in $100 gift shop packages, bundled with a pile of anniversary gift tanks, is a strategy to increase demand and make more from big-ticket players though.
  11. The closest Germany got to an operational carrier was Graf Zeppelin, a floating lumber yard. The closest France got to an operational carrier was... an operational carrier. Of the two lines, I would find it rather more annoying if they excluded the one with an actual functioning ship.
  12. This reasoning is incredibly obnoxious and has an annoying tendency of being wrong. There's no natural law that for-profit entities always do the most profitable thing, even big companies like Wargaming. "Milk the whales for all you can" isn't by default the best business model. In large part, the whales will be spending a lot of money on the game whatever you do. If you believe forum posts, some people are spending nearly $100 a week on tanks. Even with its relatively whale-friendly model, nobody's spending that kind of money just on buying the newly released premiums. World of Warships isn't inherently a game for whales, that's absurd. It's a game for whales because it's marketed to whales. There's no reason to assume a game about boats won't get anywhere. Before tanks was released, who'd have thought a third person shooter/low realism simulator about WWII tanks would get so popular? (and remember that in the first couple years of tanks they weren't selling nearly as many whale bundles, Type 59 cost ~30-40 dollars, and the first tank lines didn't have many overpowered tier 10s gated behind godawful middle tiers) There's a lot of money in the "sometimes spends money on a game" group, but the way this game prices its premium items discourages them from buying in. If your game is free to play, expect it to be judged as a free game. Aside from one dollar on the humble bundle (none of which went to Wargaming), I haven't spent any money on this game. I spend more than $70 a month on entertainment - I could easily have bought a Tirpitz on my entertainment budget, but I don't just buy a ship because it's there and I have the money. That 70 dollar ship is competing against other things, it's not just "well I have 70 dollars, and world of boats is selling a boat for 70 dollars, so I guess I'll buy it!" It's incredibly short-sighted to say that people aren't spending money on boats because they can't afford it; people aren't spending money on boats because they don't think it's worth it. If someone had given me a hundred dollars on the day Tirpitz sales started I still wouldn't have bought a premium ship. For an analogy, why not look at other videogame sales? Computer wargames tend to be priced as new AAA releases, even years after their release. If you look at computer wargame forums (don't) you'll often see posters, even developers and publishers, criticizing the idea of going on a mainstream platform like Steam or selling their game for less. It's a niche title after all, and the people who play it spend enough on their hobby that $80 isn't much, right? Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations is far more of a niche title than World of <thing> could ever dream of being. It simulates airstrikes and naval battles in excruciating detail, and its user interface has such friendly decisions as writing "RTB when Winchester" instead of "return to base when out of ammo," with no translation to normal language. Its standard price tag is eighty dollars. And it makes far more - not just more raw sales, more money total - when it goes on Steam sale. That's not unique, it's consistent across virtually anything. You cannot compare virtual goods with zero marginal costs of production to Apple products. They do not work the same way. Of all the things I've seen on this forum, going into a screed on your personal political beliefs to defend overpriced ship bundles is definitely some quality gamers.txt.
  13. France should get carriers in some capacity, as they actually had an operational carrier (even if it never launched a plane in combat) and dedicated carrier aircraft in the time period. Germany is certainly getting carriers for the wehrabux, and it'd be awfully dumb to give Germany an imaginary carrier tree likely with invented ships at the high tiers if France didn't get the same.
  14. It's not like hitpoints are a thing in real life. I don't think anyone has a problem with them not being perfectly consistent, the stupid thing is that Colorado breaks the displacement-health relation when it's, well, a Colorado.
  15. Colorado still has (slightly) more displacement than New Mexico. Wargaming! It's not like they've stopped whining, I think it's just a fact of life. Somehow the rock-paper-scissors thing means an idiot battleship should still be able to go 1v5 against higher tier cruisers and win, even though the same exact players would be screaming about unbalanced games if their battleship were similarly vulnerable to destroyers (or even if battleships suffered realistic damage from surface ship torpedoes).
×
×
  • Create New...