benlisquare

Super Tester
  • Content count

    1,085
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3438

6 Followers

About benlisquare

  • Rank
    Ghost of Gensokyo
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile benlisquare

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

1,153 profile views
  1. If you install the English locale version of the Asia game client, you can only display Roman letters, Cyrillic letters, and Thai. Everything else will be boxes. If you install the Japanese locale version of the Asia game client, you can display Roman letters, Cyrillic letters, Japanese Kanji/Hiragana/Katakana, and Korean Hangul. Simplified Chinese and Thai will appear as boxes. If you install the Traditional Chinese locale version of the Asia game client, you can display Roman letters, Cyrillic letters, Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, and Japanese Kanji/Hiragana/Katakana. Thai and Korean Hangul will display as boxes. I'm not sure about the Thai and Korean versions of the game, because I have not tried those yet.
  2. subs

    1. Gameplay would be incredibly boring if the fastest you could move was 12 knots when surfaced (and even slower when submerged). Submarines are not fast. 2. Gameplay would be frustrating for ships with no ASW armaments at end-match when there are only a small handful of ships still alive, and submarines remain submerged to allow the capture points to continue ticking without any chance of being attacked. 3. Submarine gameplay involving stealth torping is already largely covered by IJN DDs, and there really isn't much new to add with their introduction. 4. The WoWS game engine is incapable of having vessels operating below the water. 5. Submarines never operated in fleet action, and more often took place in separate attacks against merchant vessels independently from allied surface ships. 6. The United States Navy, Royal Navy, Soviet Navy and the Kriegsmarine considered submarines boats, and not warships, which would place them outside of the scope for World of Warships. The German word Unterseeboot (U-boot) literally means "under sea boat", the Russian word подводная лодка means "underwater boat", and the Chinese word 潛水艇 means "water submerging boat". Only in the Japanese language are submarines referred to as ships (潜水艦, lit. "water submerging ship"), however this is the exception and not the rule.
  3. With Wargaming experimenting with multi-country tech trees, starting with the Pan-Asia destroyer line (which spans Taiwan, Thailand, China, Indonesia and South Korea), would it be possible for other multi-country tech trees to be eventually implemented, should the Pan-Asia tree become a success? The Austro-Hungarian Empire built many famous warships, however a full tech tree (to tier 10) cannot be created since obviously the A-H Empire ceased to exist after 1918; combining these ships with other miscellaneous European nations (such as Holland, etc.) in a European tree may potentially allow for full tech tree branches. The same applies for many South American nations (such as Brazil, Chile, Peru and Argentina) who also built many warships during the first half of the 20th Century, however don't have enough ships for a country tech tree on their own. Also, I know of many players who are willing to pay good money (US$80+) to be able to play on multiple regional WoWS servers (e.g. Asia + NA) using the same account, without having to restart progress from scratch (i.e. shared account progress across servers). There are many Australian and New Zealand players who have close friends on both Asia and NA servers, and it's quite a shame that they aren't able to play with their friends quite easily. Is WG willing to explore this option for multi-server account linking, as a potential service that can be sold to these players? Not only will it allow players to be able to play with friends on different servers, it can also enable official and unofficial cross-region competitive tournaments more easily.
  4. Actually, the EULA permits account sharing, however strongly recommends against it, and states that players have full responsibility and WG cannot protect the sharer against malicious damage to their account (for example, a troll selling all their ships or teamkilling other players). The EULA prohibits the sale of accounts in exchange for money. However, the WoWS forum rules do not allow players to advertise giveaway offers, and I'd recommend that the OP delete their post content in good faith, to avoid forum sanctions.
  5. It's a genuine and legitimate concern though. People should not have to jump through additional hoops just to figure out if a date is July 6 or June 7, when a properly formatted date format specifically catered to the region would alleviate the confusion. One would expect to know the date just by looking at the date, rather than looking at the date and then scrolling through earlier articles to compare the dates. Asking Asian (YYYY-MM-DD) and Commonwealth (DD-MM-YYYY) players to just "deal with it" and get used to the American dating system, is kind of like saying "just deal with it" with having Fahrenheit temperatures, gallon volumes, stone weights and inch lengths outside of America. This isn't America.
  6. CVs have an overwhelming influence over the outcome of a battle. One good CV up against one bad CV has a much greater chance of causing a winning match compared to one good BB against one bad BB.
  7. Hello Sub_Octavian. Do the developers have plans for a future patch to implement some method of teaching new and unexperienced players how to play aircraft carriers? Currently, the lack of information provided by the game is acting as a barrier against players wishing to progress through the aircraft carrier lines. Currently, the game does not adequately teach the player how to play CVs in any way, be it an interactive playable tutorial or even readable text. New players have no idea how to use fighter strafing or manual drops, and they might even not know that these features even exist. As a result, we end up with two outcomes: Players continue to be completely oblivious to the game mechanics of CVs, and become immensely frustrated at the game. Then, they either complain that the game needs rebalancing, or they simply stop playing CVs altogether in a quit of rage. A smaller proportion of players go to the WoWS forums, or view videos on Youtube, and read/watch third-party tutorials created by the community that teach them the game mechanics of playing aircraft carriers. Why is it that in order for players to learn how to play aircraft carriers, they need to go out of their way to search for this information online? Why is this learning process not part of the game itself? Ultimately, this is hurting CV player retention, and it is also causing questionable balance changes, such as the removal of manual attacks from tier 4 and 5 CVs. This causes even more problems, as now new players are unable to learn how to use fighter strafing and manual drops in lower tiers, and are suddenly overwhelmed with difficulty once they reach tier 6 where CV gameplay is significantly more difficult as it requires more micro work from the player to deal with more squadrons and stronger ship AA. This makes it seem that the removal of alt-attacks from tiers 4 and 5 is nothing more than a band-aid solution that does not fix the problem at the core. As for the issue of lower tier surface ships being sealclubbed by proficient CV players, the same issue applies. Why doesn't the game teach players how to overlap AA, to not separate themselves from the team, and to click on aircraft for an AA DPM bonus? Why are so many aspects of the game missing from any kind of tutorial aimed at teaching beginners? One last unrelated thing: Any future plans for server roaming? For example, ASIA players playing on NA server? I recall that back in 2013, server roaming for World of Tanks was being tested by RU supertesters, however the feature was ultimately cancelled. I am certain that many WoWS players would be interested in such a feature, even if it was a paid feature that you spent real money for.
  8. There's your problem: Your version of WINE is using libraries from Windows XP, which as of 0.6.4 is no longer supported by WoWS. In order for your Mac OS X system to run win32 applications, it needs to use a compatibility layer known as WINE. WINE uses various software libraries in order to run Windows applications on Unix-like systems, and it seems here that WinXP libraries are being used.
  9. A lot of people are already aware of the changes made, which are mentioned within the patchnotes. What the concern is that, Saipan players have found a new way to use the fighters, with a tactic that some might feel as somewhat OP, as there is little counterplay against it. I was watching a few popular NA streamers on Twitch playing the Saipan, and it does seem pretty difficult to counterplay.
  10. Have you not read the RU forum Q&As? An extremely large and disproportionate amount of requests to the developers involve making BBs stronger, due to the perception that they suffer too easily against DD enemies. I would tell you, but I don't want to get a 3-day forum ban. There are equivalent terms for CA, DD and CV that are popular throughout the WoWS community outside of these forums. Hint: In ancient Rome, the letter "V" was actually used as a "U".
  11. And you guys all didn't believe me when I told you that these forums have a strong case of Dunning–Kruger. Exhibit A, guys. BB players will do anything to defend their class, and since they form the majority population globally (especially on NA and RU), they become the loud and vocal audience that in the long run will get their way. For the naysayers, please count for me the number of times BB, as a class altogether, has been nerfed since version 0.3.0. Then do the same thing, but for DDs instead. Come on, I'm waiting.
  12. Pointless poll that doesn't affirm anything, since: The language is loaded to begin with. Last night's thread involved people arguing that BBs were easier to play and were more forgiving of mistakes compared to other classes. Not "OP". The two concepts are completely different from another, and are not equivalent by any means. By misrepresenting the argument and going for the argumentum ad absurdum tactic, you've already poisoned the well. You're not going to get any sample size greater than 300, I'm willing to wager. I'm not sure if you've learned basic statistics in school, but you're not going to get statistically significant results from such a small sample. Not to mention, you'd be definitely dealing with volunteer bias from a select group of vocal forumites as well. Remember, telephone polls predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency. Battleships are popular. That's a fact of life; players are drawn to big ships with cool guns. From a sociological viewpoint there will be more players defending their favourite class, however that doesn't mean that they'd do so in the best interests of game mechanics balance. The majority of any online community suffers from the Dunning–Kruger effect. I don't even know what you are trying to achieve through this.
  13. Alright, I'll take that valid point. One thing to consider, however, is that the game mechanics stay the same across all servers, and it's quite unlikely that the mechanics will be rebalanced based on any one particular server (and even if they did, they wouldn't rebalance them based on the Asia server with the smallest player population). If the mechanics were rebalanced to ease survivability of BBs on Asia server, what effect does that have on the NA, EU, RU and CN servers? It's not practical for server metas to be perfectly taken into account when they adjust these values patch after patch. Ultimately, on any server, the biggest threat to BBs are other BBs. The threat of fires are over-exaggerated, and torpedoes have become more and more situational since patch 0.5.x and beyond. The following graph is from 2016, however I somewhat doubt that much has changed since then: The flesh pink percentage values correspond to direct AP damage, while the dark orange corresponds to fire damage. Light orange is HE, light blue is torpedoes, light pink is torpedo bombers, and green is flooding damage. Here, we can see that more damage dealt to BBs come from AP shells, rather than fires. I'm curious to see an updated version of this graph for 2017, but I'm quite certain that we'd see similar trends.
  14. Are we going to suddenly pretend that Asia server is somehow more skilled and more intelligent compared to the other servers, simply because of the different proportions of ship classes being used? The underlying mechanics of the game are still the same, regardless of what meta exists on a particular server.
  15. I assure you he is an expert in BB play outside of the Asia server, he plays on RU using alt accounts. For the sake of not enabling everyone's stat stalking, don't expect any names from me though.