Jump to content

cyqsimon

Member
  • Content Сount

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9956
  • Clan

    [PANTS]

About cyqsimon

  • Rank
    Lieutenant (junior grade)
  • Insignia
    [PANTS]

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Nowhere, Anywhere, and Everywhere

Recent Profile Visitors

680 profile views
  1. This problem mainly comes back to annoy old players: Say that I have played through the entire IJN battleship line and got the Yamato, and I have sold every other ship in the line. But one day I suddenly decided to buy my Fuso back. In the current system, I would have to buy the Fuso with all of its stock modules first, then buy the upgraded modules, and finally going to the inventory to sell the stock modules. Not only is this a hassle, it also costs me to waste some credit on those modules (since selling only reimburses half the credit). This may not be that significant with lower tier ships, but with high tier ships each module's cost can easily exceed 2M credits, which is not an amount many players can afford to throw away. So my proposal is the following: if a player has already researched a module for a certain ship, they should be prompted and allowed to buy the upgraded module directly, instead of having to purchase all the stock modules first.
  2. I know it's not even April 2018 yet but it's always worth planning ahead. The idea came when I knew about this particular torpedo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval If you read the article, this torpedo is capable of 200kts utilizing supercavitation, which can introduce a really special element to the game. Basically, I envision a game mode like PUBG: 24 players in a death match, with an ever shrinking game region. All players will be captaining torpedo boats, like the ones in last year's Dunkirk scenario. Each ship is equipped with either one or two single launchers with a ~15s reload and has no guns. The torpedoes are VA-111s, traveling 200kts but have a huge detection radius: practically always spotted when launched. It's basically a torpedo grappling orgy, which sounds pretty fun to me... Added to that we can have weather effects that reduce the spotting distance, and maybe a special consumable that reduces damage taken by 50% but has a very long reload? I think this will make a very interesting game mode.
  3. cyqsimon

    Camouflage sorting

    Well, not really aye
  4. cyqsimon

    Camouflage sorting

    Sounds cool, and while we're at it, do a flag sort as well.
  5. cyqsimon

    Shooting Friendly Ships Should Not Set Fires!

    I will apologize first about my degrading comment yesterday. Look-downs based on stats are never appropriate and I have made an edit to it since. Now back to the issue itself: as you mentioned about secondaries, there was a 'perfectly good' argument to be made for not preventing them from doing team damage: 'You could just be careful and turn secondaries off when near friendly otherwise it's your own fault.' Pfffft. It's simply not a good enough response and I think WG made the right call when they decided to change it. Similarly, now I would like to see them disable fire damage on team as well. Contrary to what you implied about there needing to be a big change to the engine to disable fire damage to allies, such a change would be trivial - in essence one extra control flow structure in shell hit handler, something like: if(target.isFriendly()) { // do damage.} else { // do damage. // set fires.} Well, something like that. My point is it's not a huge change and certainly not 'absurd'.
  6. cyqsimon

    Shooting Friendly Ships Should Not Set Fires!

    No. It was 2 HE shells and 1 fire on a GK, in a single match on PTS. The 2 shells did nearly no damage, but the single fire did 15K. I said it very clearly in my post. The stupid pink mechanism based on absolute rather than relative health decided 19 matches is the 'appropriate' penalty. Guys, I have 8k matches and I know how to play the game, so stop trying to teach me how to play. *After reviewing my comment next day I realized a look-down is very inappropriate so it has since been removed. Apologies for the previous rage comment. But otherwise my point still stands.* Telling the player 'to be careful' is not a good enough response. (Not to mention checking surrounding before shooting every salvo is anything but 'trivial'.) You are essentially saying: 'be careful not to accidentally scrape anyone with your HE, not even once, otherwise we might kill you for team killing and you can blame yourself.' What difference is that to: 'be careful not to bump into anyone when walking in public, not even once, otherwise we might jail you without trial and you can blame yourself.'? It's this simple: an insignificant wrongdoing should not be assigned a significant punishment. Going back to my case: my penalty for misfiring 2 HE shell, since they caused a fire on a large ship, was the death of my own ship for that game, and pink status for 10 or more matches. Even when I stopped immediately after the first warning pops up, it was already too late for me since RNG decided for me that I would like to continue to do fire damage to my teammate. Again: the wrongdoing does not correspond to an anywhere-near-appropriate penalty. If I shot that friendly GK 30 times, did 15K damage, got pink and died, I would have no complaint. In reality I scraped him with 2 shells, and for some god awful reason, I received the same punishment. So my proposed solution is simple: don't let HE shells set fire to friendly, so that the wrongdoing, whether intentional or unintentional, can actually receive a fitting and non-excessive punishment.
  7. I have had a post half a year ago with identical idea. You can find it here: I'm posting again because apparently that didn't gain traction and I think the problem is so blatantly obvious. Alright. I was on PTS server yesterday playing Hindenburg. I passed by a GK while shooting and caught him with 2 HE shells. Completely unintentional. That did little damage by itself. But it also caused a fire on him that kept burning for 1 whole minute. Of course since it's a GK the fire damage is massive and he lost 15K health to that single fire. During that time, I turned from full health, to pink in 10 seconds, and died due to team damage in 20 more seconds. After battle, I caused 65K team damage in total, 15K to GK with fire, and 50K to myself due to team kill penalty. And for that the game awarded me a 19-games pink status. To summarize, my game got completely ruined, my team lost a ship for nothing, and I got a 19-games pink status penalty for 2 HE hits on a friendly, UNINTENTIONALLY. I am trying very hard to suppress my anger and I hope you can understand my frustration and see the problem here. Now, I don't blame that GK at all since holding DC on 1 fire is completely understandable. And ultimately my team did win that game plus it was only PTS. But the same situation could happen and has happened on live server, and I don't think I need to further explain why this is an issue that needs to be fixed. So, my suggestions are as following: Make everything percentage based! 10K damage to a friendly destroyer should not be punished equally as 10K damage to a friendly battleship! It should take a fixed percentage of health done by team damage before pink status is imposed, not by an absolute value. Also when I'm already pink, if I cause 1K damage to a friendly destroyer, I should not take 10K myself, rather the percentage 1K is to that destroyer, times 10, then applied to myself health. Stop making HE set fire on friendly ships! Accidents do happen quite often, and having HE set fire to friendly ships is no different than forcing me to cause damage to my team and punishing me for that. And as a final note please give a thumbs up if you have had the same thing happen to you before. It's important because clearly, WG doesn't pay close attention to this forum board to begin with.
  8. cyqsimon

    SAIPAN

    I have to agree that Saipan is overpowered for players of most skill levels (although at top level Hiryu is still king). But I believe the problem with Saipan is only an instantiation (a subset, if you will) of the larger problem of carriers in general. A good player in Saipan suffocates the enemy carrier, but a good player in any carrier suffocates the entire enemy team. As WG agrees, the whole carrier system requires an extensive rework (which has been promised year after year but we've yet to see anything).
  9. cyqsimon

    Battleships - Massive powercreeps?

    In good players' hands, high tier cruisers and destroyers can get much higher win rates than battleships ever can (assuming playing solo). In my book that is the major downside of high tier battleships, that in terms of direct influence on the outcome, they are significantly worse than other classes. Although I do have to admit battleships are quite brain-dead, and in certain scenarios they are too strong. Good examples are: all RN battleships; battleship AP against destroyers; 460mm; etc. Compared to cruisers and destroyers, they require so much less effort to play and often turn out to be more rewarding it's not even funny.
  10. This official support for training room 'upgrade' seems more like a downgrade to me. All that was actually upgraded was the UI and permissions (and option to disable cyclone), which are very nice and all, but in return lots of the key features that are necessary are removed for some reason. I am now limited to 3 CVs per team; there are no longer any bots and only stationary targets; special battle types for some maps (e.g. ranked-style capture points) are completely unavailable. On the other hand the features I (and I think lots of players) wanted were not added, e.g. the ability to add a bot with specific modules, upgrades, captain skills, and consumables; the ability to pick spawn point for individual ships; etc. Overall the official training room support at this moment is to say the least, very disappointing. To put the features I think are necessary into a list: Ability to add fully customizable bots into a battle, including its specific modules, upgrades, captain skills, and consumables. To be able to set bots' active and armed states like in the past. Include option to choose ranked battle type for related maps. Add the functionality to pick spawn points for each ship. Remove the 3 CV cap. I am aware that there is an argument to be made for conserving server resources. But to sacrifice so much functionality for this reason is no different than to limit car use to within walking distance in order to conserve fuel: you might as well not have it.
  11. cyqsimon

    World of WarFleets

    Good idea but I don't think it fits into WoWs. Not only are the game styles completely different, this would also require a revamp of the entire game engine. The current WoWs engine is based on a first-person shooter game (remember the time when you could press space to jump over torpedoes?), whereas the game mode you proposed is RTS. So sorry, no. I don't see this suggestion remotely viable.
  12. cyqsimon

    Perm Camo in Inventory

    I would love to have the ability to sell permanent camos, although I doubt WG will allow them to be sold for doubloons. That being said I will happily sell them for credits as well, just to clear up my inventory clutter.
  13. cyqsimon

    Ability to set max ping to enter battle

    Ping time is inherently fluctuating and random spikes are to be expected. If your internet connection is consistently good it actually makes the problem of upfront lag detection more difficult. So yeah, I don't think there is a straight forward solution to this problem but I would love to see WG build in a ping monitor into the client. That would at least help a bit.
  14. I have 60 ships in port, and I'm sure some people out there have many more than I do. With the start of a new ranked season I would like to mount the rank flag on every one of my ships. Unfortunately I have to do this one by one, which is a pain. Since in many cases, players want to have the same flag for most of their ships, it would be nice to add a "Mount on All Ships" button right under/next to the current "Mount" button. Something like this:
×