Elgerino

Figures, seeing as you can carry with a Minekaze on a quadstick.

I can't agree with that. When I say every other game, I'm really not exaggerating. I would say the only thing I see less of is the post-match PM harassment, but I'm sure that's because I used to engage assholes in chat more when I played WOT. These days I'm more philosophical about the human nature behind these things. If I was you, I'd start recording instances of toxicity. In my discussions with you, I'm given the impression you seem to be a pretty positive guy who's likely not to pay much mind to what goes on in chat, I'd be interested to see a simple tally from you marking yay or nay to chat toxicity on a game by game basis, see what you come up with.

You calculate a firing solution in your mind and you use a peripheral to line it up. You have practically all the time in the world to do it, one doesn't need a mouse. Even with Des Moines you can adjust on a pad faster than the armaments fire. The aiming skill the game requires really is trivial and you're in no way limited by it. It's all about thinking ahead, not twitch shooting like some Deathmatch FPS.

Controller is known to be inferior, because it lacks quick precision and lack of accessible buttons by comparison. That's it. This is a very slow paced game and constant adjustment is only required for CV's, which is why I recommended it wasn't used for those. For aiming with ships, there really is no need for the mouses quicker adjustments. As for the buttons, there's no need for more than a modern game pad has. Mouse and Keyboard 'me' would perform no better because I have never felt I couldn't get the accuracy I needed for torpedoes and main calibre. I use it exclusively for WOT too, if you wanna take a look at my performance there. It's all well and good saying mouse and keyboard is superior, peesee mastur rais 4 lyf and all that, but being absolutist about it is dumb. There are droves of games that don't need the extra precision nor the wealth of buttons to map. This is one of them. Plus it's better for my lady slaying posture.

To those who think WOT is worse than WoWs right now, I wonder if we're playing the same game. There's arguments and name calling in every other match, exactly as in WOT. Someone hasn't read Jita/Amarr chat.

Look at your stats, now back to me. Look at my stats, now back to me. I play exclusively with a pad and I feel no handicap.

The last patch changed things so that CV's would normally be matched tier for tier and equal numbers. If it happened other-wise, the only explanation (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that there simply wasn't a perfect match between CV's available at the time and matchmaker made due with what it had. No further alteration to the rules can fix this, unless you want to make it a hundred percent certainty that things are balanced tier for tier and equal numbers, in which case CV's are going to have serious problems outside peak times, people won't want to play them because they can't get a game and that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

More naive to think removing it would change human nature for the better. It's the same flawed thinking people use to say ''I don't want cheats in the game, ban all mods! That'll fix it!''. Are we really going to pretend WoWs chat is any better than WOT right now despite the absence of it? Yeah, except people have always quit at the start of the game even before the win chance indicator, they just did it for other reasons. (Too many op x or y tank [edited]this MM I quit, etc). Either way, quitters are rare. Nine times out of ten it was just some pre-game moaning, same as you get in WoWs. How many times have we seen people complain about the number of Clevelands at the start of the match? Even seen some quitters.

This isn't the mods fault. Someones attitude is the root cause here. It might be yours, it might be the people who pounce on you when you don't perform. Doesn't matter which. Except in a game you don't need to give a crap what employers think. How you perform, act, what you say and do are your own choice. XVM didn't even change anything, you might be rid of your police record tatoo but an employer is still scrutinising you every other which way they can. Believe me, without the stats other players are watching you and they're ready to launch a tirade against you for whatever arbitrary reason they can come up with to protect their ego from their own failure. XVM didn't start this practise and I argue that just because it makes it easier, doesn't mean you're going to see the difference once it's gone. Again, the concept of no mods is fanciful. If you think the developer proclaiming all mods banned will stop aimbots you are greatly mistaken.

If you're not being harassed why would there be any pressure? It sounds like the problem here is in your perceptions not the mod itself. That or you're backpeddling from the claim that the mod is the source of the harassment, which we know is rubbish. As for stat padding...what? Associating negative behaviours with mods is DUMB. Stat whoring was rife before mods and it will be rife during and after them as long as the game offers a publically accessible statistics breakdown.

Yeah, I was rude. One easily loses patience when one has addressed the same stupid point for the hundredth time in this very thread for all to see. As for where I got the idea, your bloody post. It's unambiguous.

Sorry to interrupt, just a little curious, where the [edited]have you gotten the idea that you're only being criticised because of XVM? I remember full well the days before it and much like now in WoWs, there's plenty of [edited] measuring and plenty of arguing over who did or didn't do what at the right time, especially as you climb the tiers.

''No mods'' is not an option in any case. Just like making murder illegal doesn't stop all murdering, mods are inevitable.

Do you even realise how cringeworthingly desperate you come across? Chasing me thread to thread repeating the same (wrong) crap you've said fifty times already? Just gonna add you to my ignore list and be done with it. I know how important the delusion that you're a good player is to you, so I hope it holds and you're not found swinging from the rafters.

I feel like people rationalise stats away a lot. Stats might not be important, that's because they're not. This is a game. But they do indicate how well you play. You can say ''Oh, I don't consider kills important'' if you like, but that would make you a bad player. Killing the enemy is the aim of the game. If you have a lot of damage that's fine, but you can't have good damage and a terrible KD ratio, it rarely ever works out like that. Damage and KD ratio are not perfectly parallel so there's a margin for error. But seriously, do you think that margin of error explains the fact that you die twice as much as you kill when that should be the other way around? I'm not judging, because you're clearly new to the game. But rationalising away bad performance doesn't make you a better player, it entrenches your problems.

It's not surprising you're confused, the game has some contradictory elements. For example, planes necessitate formations so you can focus AA fire, but fighting other ships requires room to dodge and tight formations get in the way. Dealing with destroyers depends case by case. Early destroyers have about the same torp range as their detection, if you know they're coming you can load HE and wait until they move to broadside, give them a salvo then turn away to dodge the torpedoes they inevitably loosed. At higher tiers, their torpedo range increases and you'll never be able to detect them as a BB. You're reliant on CV's to spot them with planes and Cruisers to ward them off and/or destroy them. You can't avoid being hit in a big ship, if you're fighting other BB's the key is to dodge as much as possible to reduce incoming fire and ensure you're not broadside when the shells come. If you offer a straight shot at your belt armour, you're in for a one way trip to the sea floor. If you're against cruisers, you can't dodge them, you can only hope you destroy them before they destroy you. You should still try though, maybe you're battling an incompetent who doesn't adjust for turns. BB's nearly exclusively fire AP, but at very low tier you maybe better off using HE due to low accuracy and low penetrating power. Once you hit tier 4/5 depending on nation you can start one shotting cruisers with AP and keep your HE in reserve for DD's. This is a very general rule and not ideal for every situation. If I went into which BB's can effectively kill which cruisers with which ammo we'd be here all day, the best way to learn this is with experience, working from the general rule and adding nuance yourself. Avoiding torpedoes, pretty much impossible if you can't see them coming. Torpedo bombers appear on the map, giving you a chance. The key here is to turn as early as possible. Because torpedo bombers need to strike you from the side for good effect, you should deny them that as long as possible and hope your AA swats enough of them that they can't do much damage to you when the inevitable happens. Unfortunately the earlier BB's lack any effective AA at all, so you're going to be reliant on the incompetence of the CV player until about Tier 6 up where your AA gets better with hull upgrades. For destroyer torpedoes launched from nowhere...well, that's the BB's hard counter and there's little you can do. As you play, you'll develop the wisdom (Hopefully) to tell when DD's are nearby or likely to be nearby, you'll know to change directions often and turn away if you think torpedoes are imminent. Until then, prepare for a cacophony of holes in your ship below the water line. If you get zerged by torpedo planes, not your fault. If the CV get's a hardon for you he's going to come for that booty whether you like it or not. The best you can do is call for AA support from nearby cruisers. Aiming is pretty much eyeballing. You can use the optics (The line on the crosshair with the little numbers) to tell where to aim, taking into account range to the target and muzzle velocity. But eventually you'll learn the guns and you can eyeball it effectively enough.

There's these little ships called New York and New Mexico that disagree. You've got it the wrong way around, I consider the slower BB's better for their tier than the faster BB's. This has been a problem with the game since alpha, the faster the BB's are the larger the target or the worse the armour and the trade off doesn't really help it fight cruisers. Whether the BB is moving at 33 knots or 20, doesn't particularly matter. They are not hard to hit in either case, just have to remember which ships move at what speeds and adjust accordingly. There are 5 factors for fighting cruisers that actually matter. 1: Rudder shift time. 2: Turning Circle. 3: Muzzle velocity, perhaps the most important one. 4: Crew skills primarily devoted to fighting fires as opposed to secondary armaments, which unfortunately reduces your defense against CV's. 5: Volume of fire. These, apart from crew skills obviously, mostly get worse as time goes on post tier 6 whilst cruiser firepower increases. BB's at the lower end of the range have better agility (more useful than speed for fighting cruisers) low angle guns and high velocity for very short shell travel times, they're smaller targets and they're bristling with guns. Meanwhile the Cruisers are mostly weaker, Cleveland is the most powerful ship you'll find yourself fighting regularly and the odd Mogami will make you crap your pants, but generally speaking the light cruisers are not nearly as good at killing Tier 5/6 BB's as heavy cruisers are at engaging higher tier BB's. CA's have the armour to bounce AP no matter what calibre and they're bristling with accurate 8''. I'm rambling. The reasons Tier 6 BB's are more comfortable are numerous and I could go on about them all day.

They're weak. Apart from some Tier 6 BB's which are super strong, I'd rather take a Cruiser at every tier. Maybe that's just my personal opinion, not represented in reality. Nevertheless, I find Cruisers far more capable of winning a game than BB's.

I suspected this might be the case, but I haven't noticed any particular increase in accuracy so naturally I discounted it. Even having it confirmed by a dev I'll be somewhat skeptical until I see an increase in my accuracy stats. If it is the case, it's nice to see devs taking the BB issue's seriously. It seemed like they were happy with the way things were after the penetration re-buff in CBT, even though since then BB's have been particularly weak.

It was definitely pay to win, you just couldn't compare with people who'd sunk a hundred quid into the game. Your sailors were worse, so you had less effective HP, less accuracy, less everything. That doesn't mean it wasn't a skilful game, you just had to sink a lot of cash to truly compete.

It's not about who outperforms who in total damage. It's about the fact that the cruiser has no hard counter, seeing as thanks to the ultra high HE damage they can hang with BB's just fine. They annihilate DD's and planes are the Cruisers speciality. Just because BB's are better at destroying other BB's and therefore cause more damage, that doesn't make Cruisers any less powerful.

I'm not sure it even goes that far, it seems to suggest tier matching based on win-rate. ''The allowable range'' appears to refer to battle tiers. It seems the patent pertains only to methods of deciding whether the player should be low-tier or high-tier in his game, not how players should be skill matched for a fair game, much less an unfair one by design.

Exactly.

I think you'll find you're butthurt, a moron and pathetic. I already explained why this is all wrong, you're just too illiterate to realise. My stats aren't as good as yours, but I'm still better than you. God, why doesn't anyone agree with me?

Yeah, that post just oozes emotional security. MM is random by the way, just didn't want to argue it at that time. Applying rules to a system doesn't mean the result is any less chaotic. Because the game does nothing to skill-match, and only fiddles with tiers, the result of the match is essentially random.