Shaka_D

Ranked 1 is hard to get because it needs the player to put in more time than he needs skill. Ranked battles have less to do about skill and more to do with time, the MM, RNG / luck. Not as you say, you;ve got it backwards. This is sadly a fact. 4 seasons have taught me this, but I'll still be entering the 5th because even though I know I'll never get to rank 1 due to life commitments I'll still play. It's different.

mmm, looks pretty good.

The only 'skill level' balancing the MM should take into account is to balance the team, i.e. player skills distributed evenly across both teams. For example, If the one team has 5 pro's and 7 low skilled bobs then the other team should have a similar setup. 'Random' is such an abused word and often used in a blanket fashion and inappropriately, but remember the very fact the MM balances ships already means that part of the mm is mostly not random. We can still have 'random' matches if the teams (in terms of players) are balanced too. There are many other random factors that we can take into account. What fun is there in having a team of random semi-pro's versus the antithesis of pro's on the other team. That said, if they were to do this they'd still have a problem trying to factor divisioned players into the equation. I'm quite happy either way, winrate is not the b-all and end-all of all life on earth now is it?

As a CV player I suck, but I am learning to hold off a little and wait for the right time. I've too often seen players rush their planes getting all excited about the damage they can inflict. Looking forward to the changes coming.

And this is exactly the attitude we need to have in this game. 'You win some, you lose some' is great advice. @OP forget about your winrate as much and just play the game. There are things in life far more important, like for instance the date they'll be releasing the Belfast? Anyone know?

Buy a smaller screen you rich snob. The rest of us play on average sized screens and in Russia they still use:

? You can't login or you've been banned? Have you tried contacting support? Did you buy an account and now can't login? So many questions. Elaborate more please.

Don't like it

lol, agreed.

I think the mere fact that many late war subs were designed to be included in fleet operations is enough to warrant their inclusion in some way in the game. Remember we have dozens of ships whose blueprints never even made the actual build phase yet they are well and alive in the game, not to mention other non-realities such as infinite ammo, and so on. The real question here is how would they fit into the game? Difficult one, and even though I'd love to see them in the game I do realise that it would be an extremely difficult project for WG to carry out. Rock, paper, scissors and submarines doesn't quite ring true (yet). Simply saying no to subs purely because they weren't really practically involved in fleet ops (that we know of) is not really grounds for refusing them entry into WoWS. They were part of the same theatre of war, intergral to successful operations of naval forces and have earned their place in history. There is always room for diversity, especially if it fits the genre. It simply becomes an argument of how to best apply it or whether to in the first place. I'm ok either way. I do sense subs are a sore point with you though from the tone of your responses?

Been tempted to buy it myself, has anyone tried it. Youtube vids look pretty awesome.

How do you know, no-one has ever seen them. I submit evidence of this: Maybe they were there all along? . Jokes aside though mtm, submarines were in fact used in fleet operations, or at least designed with fleet operations in mind with the ability to try keep up with the fleet, if not ahead of it while surfaced in order to 'screen' ahead of the fleet. Seems to be quite a bit of evidence relating to this. From what I've read gato class submarines (1944) were designed for this very ability in mind. To point it out even further they were actually referred to as 'fleet submarines', not to be confused with 'submarines fleets'.

Playing poorly in lower tiers is acceptable, by the time players reach high tiers they should at least have a general understanding of what's needed of them. Then everyone also has bad days where we make mistakes, poor choices, etc. Understandeable too. Defining the boundaries of this is vague, if not impossible. Everyone's measurement for skill is different, no-one is always completely rational and happy and sometimes we have days when we need to vent. Speaking harshly, rudely and flaming people on a personal level, vulgarities, profanity, insults, are ALL not acceptable. (Yes, I've been there and done that shamefully). With that said, how does one define criticism? We should be allowed to criticise, but it should be constructive and non-elistist. I saw scores of older folk like me playing the game at Chatham, but I saw a lot of young children having fun. The one thing the internet does not allow us to see is the age or the face of the person we are talking too. I would hate to think I have just said something terrible to a younger person the effects of which could be devastating emotionally and unwarranted all because 'I'm in a bad mood or a sore loser'. It is 'just a game', let's be competitive but let's be humble and reasonable. We can't change the blackhearted nasty folk out there wishing others cancer, etc. This is an issue with their own upbringing where perhaps their parents couldn't have cared less for raising them as good people, but we can ourselves all do our own part to make it a better environment. It already is much better than World of Tanks, let's make it even better. One small step at a time.

I think it's fairly easy to interpret that the OP is simply suggesting that every game should have a CV in it to help balance the rock paper scissors effect, and I'm pretty sure he's implying that in 'a general sense' CV's are less popular because of their current mechanic and as such less people play them. He's not demanding anyone play cv's, he's criticising the fact that, justifiably, most players don't like them because they are too hard, less rewarding overall, and their mechanic is flawed. I agree with the OP fully. I like CV'S and enjoy playing them, but their gameplay mechanic is not nearly refined enough. I spoke with Tuccy at the Chatham event last weekend and he mentioned WG realise CV's need rework and it's something they are looking into with sincerity. He said they are hard to play and they want to make them easier in a sense, but not too easy that everyone wants to play to dominate all games. At least this is what I interpreted from Tuccy's words. Given that CV's are hard to get the balance right with it will take time and losts of feedback and analysis. But all in all, WG are aware of the issue with CV's. They've not forgotten about them.

AA is all fair and well, but not when 99% of your opponents are going to be enemy ships and not planes.

Got my MGT-20 stuff too, thanks WG. Totally unexpected! +1

Wait, South African ships? This warrants investigation, didn't know we had any back then.

Sims will struggle trying to damage BB's with it's low damage torps and slow torp speed. It's guns are little pew pews, but it's quick and cheeky as a DD. I like it a lot and love tormenting other DD players on the enemy team.

I got to point 1 on the OP's list and had a revelation. He is a BB player that recently got torped by a DD and is now butthurt. No need to read further, mystery solved! People who prediminantly play BB's and who haven't learned to use them wisely are always going to be killed by DD players who know how to use their DD's. Smells an aweful lot like barbeque BB in here. Nuff said!

What does HE mean? I've seen a lot of people using this term ingame and I can never figure out what they're talking about.

Anf how often do you think you could repeat that feat? The BB was was most likely a bad player, try go up against a better one in your atlanta and see what happens. There are simply way too many BB's in almost every game. We do not need to nerf them, simply cap their numbers. A BB must stay a BB but the way it is the ratios don't add up. Playing a cruiser these days is scary and you will find yourself focused on by BB's because they know it's an easy kill for them. Ranges are also not that great in cruisers so to get too close most of the time results in a few shells crippling your ship.

Got a spare invite code from the Chatham event. First come first serve. If you take it please declare it here so others can see it's gone. Remember, it's an invite code, not a normal bonus code so cannot be used on active or otherwise dormant accounts. The code gives an invitee the following: Diana premium ship, 1 port slot, 7 days premium, 1000 dubloons. I wonder if that first part stands for Crystal Meth (CMETH)? Doh! Enjoy! Enjoy the bonus code that is, drugs are bad...I'll shut up now! Don't take it if you're not going to use it and feel free to add me to your friends list so we can division up. I'll gladly help / show any new comer the ropes until I die in game (also known as my 5 second tuition stance),

Absolutely agree with you here.

Who said anyone needed to follow anyone's orders? My point remains, individual skill does not automatically translate to tactical briliance in terms of teamplay. This is not rocket science, it's a fact of life. My suggestion was simply the least absurd of an overall bad idea. It was just as absurd as someone suggesting the most skilled player should automatically become the flagship. I've played with enough egotistical punks whose self-praise at their skill has resulted in the rest of the team being labelled useless apes. Further to this even if someone is 'appointed' a flagship no-one is forced to follow anyone in the game. I'll say it again - Skill and leadership are not synonymous. Randoms should remain the sandbox for players without the need for some form of pre-allocated leadership. If we want leadership we'll play clanwars (one fine day) and team / ranked battles. The idea of a flagship is a romantic one, borne of the need for cohesive gameplay when players who have a little foresight at least recognise that to win games we need some sort of organisation. Expecting that of players of varying ages, massively varying skills, languages, and so on is silly and I for one certainly do not want some full-tilt skilled player telling me how to play the game in randoms. Individual flaire has to count for something.

Far better than having the most skilled player automatically being selected as the flagship - this is a recipe for disaster. Many good players will want to focus on their own game instead of trying to 'inspire' the team all game. Skill and leadership are not synonymous.