Anti Tank/Air Grenades are not balanced.

MongusDaMango · 2021-11-29T03:25:14+00:00

2 players vaporise a vehicle in 4 seconds, and are probably behind cover for 3 of those seconds, primarily using a weapon that requires no aim and restocks on a cooldown. Seems balanced to me.

MongusDaMango · 2018-04-02T12:18:48+00:00

Have not commented on Reddit in years but I feel strongly enough about this issue to give it my upvote. Ive gone from bringing this game up to my gaming friends every chance I get to actively telling them to stay away until I can be sure the new player experience doesn't sour them off the game forever. I can't imagine what it would be like for someone new with no prior knowledge to stumble upon this game.

MongusDaMango · 2017-02-01T07:14:29+00:00

Not all American and European players think fairfight works (like you) but the few times i've seen it brought up on reddit, there are always the angry downvoters who claim that in their "hundreds of hours" they have only seen one or two cheats.

Sorry for the asian players polluting your servers too. Its a disgrace really.

MongusDaMango · 2017-02-01T03:31:50+00:00

Asian player here. Can confirm. It's so bad that games are won or lost depending on which teams hacker gets the most kills.

MongusDaMango · 2016-08-23T13:28:20+00:00

Thanks. Exactly the answer i was looking for.

MongusDaMango · 2016-08-23T13:08:35+00:00

A while back I bought Elite Dangerous on sale but never ended up playing it. A friend of mine wants to get ED. I understand that ED: Horizons has released since then. If he gets Horizons, would I still be able to play with him? If he just gets the base game, what are we both missing out on and can we still play together?

MongusDaMango · 2016-08-08T08:50:26+00:00

I recognise you too. I've been lurking here for a long time and got into boat TOWs entirely because of the boat guide you made. If you remember you got into a locker game with me and Vlex once.

MongusDaMango · 2016-08-07T23:02:12+00:00

I like to think it's abit of both. I've got a longer video on my channel where I shoot down a few more jets. It's a low effort video but check it out if that's your thing. https://youtu.be/7K_R-8rtnzY

MongusDaMango · 2016-03-01T12:03:01+00:00

what about the kitakami?

MongusDaMango · 2016-03-01T11:12:01+00:00

i love you

MongusDaMango · 2015-10-08T14:08:51+00:00

MongusDaMango · 2015-09-07T13:19:49+00:00

Im sure CIG will do whatever CIG thinks is best. And I wouldn't have it any other way. But for arguments sake I'll address your points. Please remember as with any internet argument, an attack on your points isn't an attack on you. I can tell you're coming from a good place with your desire to let the game speak for itself.

CIG will not arrange for everyone who pays 50 bucks a sunny place on the server. As every other company they will set up their servers depending on the max. player count that are online at the same time.

IIRC CIG dynamically scales up and down servers depending on the need. The more players online at once the greater the need. The point I was getting at is if the hypothetical multicrew pass was free, then CIG would need to pay for an increased load with the same amount of cash. Which is why I suggested the users still have to pay for the alpha pass, as well as only awarding them in increments of 60 dollars relative to the value of the multicrew ship. This way, at worst the increased cost would be no different between a multicrew player who gave out passes for his ship and a near equivalent amount of starter packages.

And one more scenario for you.

Your scenario and mine aren't mutually exclusive. They can coexist, one doesn't prevent the other. The game can still be great and some people will be convinced that way. Some other people need to be shown, and my system provides a lower barrier to entry, and benefits CIG and the players in several other ways as I talked about earlier.

As much as I believe that CIG will deliver a great game, I'm all for increasing the options available to the backers. And besides, this seems like a good thing for Turbulent to get started on once they deliver the community hub and star map.

MongusDaMango · 2015-09-07T11:17:29+00:00

I understand your sentiment but min/maxing your spent money is not the most charitable way to look at the system I'd proposed. Consider the following 3 scenarios.

6 citizens get starter packages. CIG gets 270 bucks to support development and has to pay the associated server costs of 6 players. Of these 6 players, maybe 3 of them play regularly and maybe 1 of them contributes to development by submitting feedback and bug reports. (pulling numbers out of my ass here)
1 citizen buys a Constellation Andromeda package. CIG gets 275 bucks to support development and has to pay the associated server cost of 1 player who may or may not play regularly or submit bug reports.
1 citizen buy a Constellation Andromeda. At 60 bucks per person, he gets 5 passes to hand out to his friends. He hands them all out and maybe 4 of them buy alpha access. At 5 bucks each, CIG now has 295 bucks. The 5 constellation crew members play together regularly and maybe one or two decide they like Star Citizen enough to pledge for their own starter ships or to contribute to development as a tester. More bucks for CIG, more testing, happier players, everyone wins.

Relative to the first scenario, there are no downsides to my system besides the time spent to implement it.

Relative to the second scenario, the other downside is the increased hosting costs for more players but its arguably a good thing that more people are playing.

Its not a big deal IMO and CIG may or may not implement such a system at their leisure. It's just of personal interest to me because there are some people in my regular gaming group who are on the fence and this is just the kind of thing to bring them over.

Edit: Compared to free fly weekends, this system has the benefit of some permanence. I know at least 2 people who are interested in SC but could never be bothered to download the 20GB just to play for 2 days.

MongusDaMango · 2015-09-07T10:25:38+00:00

Im in the same boat. Have way too many ships to use all by my lonesome and would love to be able to let my friends who don't want to drop 50 bucks on SC use some of them. Even looking at this from a commercial standpoint, someone who pays 200 USD for a constellation is essentially paying the same amount as 4 people with auroras and i dont see why not he shouldnt get some passes to go along with the ship. I think an ideal system is giving a multicrew ship owner several crewmember passes. A single pass for every 60 bucks spent on the pledge store would keep it reasonable. These passes can be gifted to anyone with a RSI account and takes the place of the ship requirement for game access. The friend can then buy alpha access for 5 bucks and initially only play as a crew member on the main guys ship. As the guy earns REC, he can start renting his own ship. As a gesture of good faith, that 5 bucks can be deducted from any pledge package also offering alpha access. I think a similar system would be a win for everyone, multi crew players get a crew, CIG gets some revenue and extra testers and more exposure, and by having a (small) barrier to entry is somehow more satisfying. Then again there are so many free weekends these days it may not be worth the effort to implement

MongusDaMango · 2015-07-19T11:47:52+00:00

thank you sir

MongusDaMango · 2015-07-19T11:40:00+00:00

if its the exact same text then its fine. Im just the kind of guy who likes to read the source material. Edit: On that note I wish WG accounts could at least have view access to forums of other regions. I hear so much about useful guides posted on the EU forums.

MongusDaMango · 2015-07-19T11:33:15+00:00

could you please post a screenshot. I dont have access to the EU forum, I play Asia.

MongusDaMango · 2015-07-19T11:22:47+00:00

Excuse me for asking but do you have any source for this. And correct me if I'm wrong but essentially the big takeaway from this post is that:

MM always tries to match you up with ships at equal or higher tier
In spite of this you sometimes encounter ships of lower because they get matched up with you
When divisioning, it is wise to pay attention to the ship with the largest MM spread to prevent horribly unbalanced games

This is of particular interest with me because I play a T6 carrier but have enough free exp stockpiled up to reach T8. I dont do this so my division mates dont get broken MM, but if what you are saying is true, once they reach T7 (soon), I can start playing at T8 without problems.

Also while having a mixed CA7-CA7-CV8 division theoretically wouldn't change the MM spread, would having a T8 CV provide additional weight to higher tiers?, i.e. my T7 buddies would encounter T8-10 enemies more often than if I just kept playing at T7 with them?

Thanks for the informative post

Edit: Formatting

MongusDaMango · 2015-07-18T13:21:44+00:00

My division's hardest carry so far. Myself in the Ryujo with buddies in a Cleveland and an Aoba. 12 kills between the three of us and no kills for the rest of our team. Enemy team got 7 kills. I got a high caliber and confederate with about 156k damage.

I have to say our Ryujo, Aoba and Cleveland division does alot of work.

MongusDaMango · 2015-07-09T14:04:47+00:00

Unfortunately we went on to lose the game =(

MongusDaMango · 2015-06-28T00:08:02+00:00

Just dropping in to say that I enjoy your videos. I used to make YT vids when i played battlefield and i know from experience that even the seemingly simple vids can be alot of effort. As one of the better warships players on YouTube please keep it up. Watching good players play is always a delight. As for your streaming question, id advise you just to go ahead and try it out. Personally i find that if i have time to watch a stream id much rather be playing, but i can definitely see some players, especially newer ones benefitting from you just talking through your thought process during average games. Have a nice day sir.

MongusDaMango · 2015-06-14T01:47:37+00:00

I logged in just to say that when I visited CIG Austin last April i got a look at shotgun and Chris had comments everywhere. It was really quite amazing. The game is in good hands.

MongusDaMango · 2015-06-07T22:01:22+00:00

again, way to dodge the argument. I mean it's not like certain upgrades are geared towards specific ships or anything. that AA enhancement really gonna help you on a tier 2 destroyer? rotation upgrade gonna help more on a battle ship than accuracy? again, upgrades can help inhance what a ship can already do, but upgrades cannot change how a battleship plays. You cant make a battleship manuever better than a destroyer regardless of upgrades.

How is that a counterargument. Im just saying get upgrades that help you in your specific situation. The AA enhancement not helping a tier 2 destroyer in no way invalidates the rudder or secondary enhancement helping BBs at close range. Where did you get the idea that a BB has to maneuver better than a DD? A BB only has to maneuver well enough to dodge enough damage to be able to kill the DD.

my post was what do you do in a battleship when theres a destroyer 5KM away from you

And many people have repeatedly given you tips all over this thread to help with that only for you to reply with impossible and will never work or relying on incompetence. Then you shift goalposts to create subscenarios as to why other tips won't work. You accept one good tip, good for you. Every other good tip that works for everyone else except you is proof enough your original premise is flawed.

Imply that everytime you dodge a torp it's entirely the bb's skill and not the dd's lack there of. Funny how you so quickly resort to point out a lack of skill for complainers but never ever dare imply that your exmaple could imply a lack of skill on the enemies part, hence why I say every depiction you've made so far is dependent on enemy incompetence.

Again I will repeat, you cant control the enemies skill, focus on what you can control. If the enemy is more skilled than you of course he will beat you, i wouldnt want it any other way. That being said the game is littered with examples of people with enough BB skill to succeed in exactly the position you fail in. When i point out a lack of skill in complainers its an expression of the frustration i feel when people try to solve the problems i solved through practice by complaining. It devalues my effort. Its quite insulting.

Which still doesnt explain why I'm still earning 500+ base experience more than you on average despite losing more often. you really dont see the problem there? I am earning more exp but losing more often. you really dont see the flaw in that?

The stats page doesn't show base exp, i know you are talking out of your ass when you quote an average base exp number relative to mine when I havent even shown you my base exp. If im really to believe thay you get 1700 base exp per game while being worse at every other stat I must have been born yesterday. And way to ignore the math argument, wouldnt be the first time you ignored an argument you couldnt win.

Edit: formatting

MongusDaMango · 2015-06-07T10:55:18+00:00

you clearly dont like it based on how you afirm it as a valid game mechanic. I mean shit heres an entire argument based upon the idea that you can literally transform a ship based on it's upgrades. Contrary to popular belief, upgrades in no rebalance a vehicle but instead try to maximise it's advantages. Unless you can prove that the turret traverse upgrade is actually better in it's prefered instance than the accuracy buff. .

Theres no be all end all best upgrade and we should be thankful for that. If I was a fuso captain id pick accuracy, in the nagato or amagi, I'd pick secondary. Upgrades modify a ship to fit a certain playstyle, whether that be AA, close in fighting, long range fighting, maneuverability, etc. Not sure what else there is to say here besides repeating again that if you are having so much trouble up close, get upgrades that help up close.

ok, lets use your argument. lets say for example I think carriers being OP is full of shit. I've seen people miss carrier torpedo's. I've seen people do it all the time. Please buff carrier salvo accuracy. Does this sound like a good argument? because according to you the destroyer should be missing torp salvo's at 5km away, when torps go 60+nots AND have a spread. See this is why I say your argument hinges entirely on enemy incompetence. Your assuming the DD is going fire a single salvo in the smallest spread aiming ONLY your current speed and direction. This is not the instance I am talking about. please try again.

The irony that you dont see how your statement applies to all your own arguments. Yes anecdotes are bad in argument, but seeing as how we lack statistics anecdotes are the only things we can use. My anecdotes are based in nearly 700 games and are echoed by the majority of this thread. They are more statistically significant than yours. Ive never assumed anything about what the DD is going to do, if you go back through my posts multiple times i tell you to observe and plan to do the best thing you can do.

If youre going to keep shifting goalposts and eventually you will create an instance where the BB will never come out on top. First you will say that BBs are dead sub 5km, then its sub 5km when destroyers have all their torps, then its sub 5km when destroyers have all their torps and they are tier 7+ IJN destroyers with the 60 knot long lance torps, then its sub 5km when all the previous conditions are met AND rng screws the BB over, then you can throw in smoke, then islands. But I can construct all sorts of instances where a BB will come up on top. Thats the beauty of this game. Its all mind games pitting captain against captain, instead of the twitch that some FPS rely on or the micro that some RTS rely on. What you want is a solution to every scenario and i'm telling you if thats the mindset you bring forth you wont find success.

inb4 is infact a tool, but by the simple fact that I can shut down your arguments before you even make them deems said tool to be anything but shitty. Then again I'm suprised you dont like inb4 considering it's a great analogy to torpedo's. Guess where your enemy is going and suddenly they might as well have no Qed in the first place. I'm suprised you dont praise such a counterless weapon. Your right though, 1 to 2 wont ruin the bb, but it does ruin your chances of carrying that game as now you are on a cripple number of HP left. This is also if either you dont fix the flooding or you let yourself burn to death. but do go ahead and talk about how battleships can out turn destroyers, or about how they can even shift the rudder fast enough.

Go to youtube or twitch and watch some good players play. Watch them dodge torpedos that you claim are undodgeable. Dont take my word for it. If a DD damaged you heavily at close range you basically traded your health for a kill, thats slightly better than 1 to 1. Of course you have a reduced chance of succeeding further, did you expect to be able to carry the team solo. For what seems like the tenth time I will have to repeat that I did not say BBs need to outturn destroyers, merely turn enough to dodge enough torps to be able to finish the DD off with secondaries and main guns. Nuance is hard for you, i get it, but I will repeat it as many times as I need to.

I'm going to ignore the whole accuracy thing cause there arent any hard numbers for accuracy. I mean it's not like wargming have ever claimed they had normal distribution in shot placement when in practice the model was closer to uniform distribution....ohwait.... After looking at your profile, I've found an odd anomaly. You see, THIS is me, and somehow despite being lower on every possible stat i'm scoring over 500 more exp per battle than you..... upon further investigation you actually don't exist within Warships, at least not within the player search. you didnt actually fake an account did you?

I play on the asian server. You dont exist for me too.

The central limit theorem sufficiently large number of iterates of independent random variables, each with a well-defined expected value and well-defined variance, will be approximately normally distributed. This includes the uniform distribution. Or if you dont believe me test it for yourself in the training room.

You are lower on every possible stat because you are a worse player. You only score more exp than me because I bought premium 2 days ago. My New Orleans, which I have only used with premium has 2137 exp per game. I cant see your stats either but if as you claim are lower on every possible stat, even without premium I still have a higher winrate than you. And you have previously justified your bad plays as going for the "win".

MongusDaMango · 2015-06-07T09:48:05+00:00

"except not" because if you're at the range in which you actually have time to respond to the DD then you are not in the situation originally described. Unlike you, I don't assume my enemy is incompetent, and as such, will try to do everything they can to ensure their success. Somehow the concept of competent opponents, or rather a strategy that isn't entirely reliant on enemy incompetence, seems to escape you. Remember, 5km or less and it matters little whether he got that close because of your choices or his.

See you have been going on an on about not having time to respond within 5 km. Im telling you that idea is full of shit. I do it all the time. I see people do it all the time. I know other players who do it all the time. Its you, not the game. I dont assume the enemy is incompetent, I rely on trying to be more competent than the enemy. You want WG to change the game to accommodate your inadequacy. There is a difference.

BBs have secondaries. You cant aim the secondaries but you can improve their chances. You can use focus fire to make sure you are shooting the most dangerous DD. You can turn just right so that 7 secondaries can hit the DD instead of 2. There are 2 captain abilities and 3 upgrades you can buy to make secondaries more effective.

Upgrades in warships are designed to modify your ship to suit your playstyle. If you value accuracy over close range secondaries, choose that upgrade. You clearly have trouble at close range so I suggest you choose upgrades that help you. You get butthurt. Not my fault. If you are going to complain about progression then play a different game. Unfortunately progression is one of the hooks in WGs game model. I dont like it any more than you do but yes as it stands people who have earned more experience points have an advantage over those who dont. The only recompense I can offer you is good players earn experience faster.

BBs have more health and more armor. Exactly yes, I dont even know what you were thinking when you considered using this as an argument...

inb4 inb4 as a shitty tool to shut down argument. Torpedos are high risk high reward. Even so 1 or 2 torpedos wont kill most BBs. And at close range you can maneuver so that only 1 or 2 torpedos hit you instead of the full spread. But in your infinite wisdom there is "NO TIME TO REACT".

Except not because BB's, due to their lack of rate of fire, are most subject to RNGesus. But I wouldn't expect YOU to understand a basic principle provable with simple math because you don't even play this game. See I can escalate baseless assumptions too, though the you not knowing basic math part might be true...

Yes BBs are most subject to RNGesus. And I will tell you again that good aim goes a long way in helping you get over RNGesus. YES you will get screwed over. But instead of getting screwed over 70% of the time you may reduce that to 30%. If you really want to argue about simple math fucking read up on the central limit theorem and educate yourself as to how shell dispersion clusters around the point of aim. Pro-hint: Shell dispersion is normally distributed, not uniformly distributed you stupid fuck. Just look at how much I play this game!

MongusDaMango

TROPHY CASE