Shaka_D

Not sure about that, mine tends to go up by two to three at a time, and then I kill some straight sailing fool in a division and it drops dramatically, then I receive a chat ban notification. Yes, I do sometimes earn a ban, but only because I'm a competitive bad tempered old fart who does not suffer fools well. My comments are usually reactions to other people and not unprovoked. I'm working on growing up at the moment, so I might attempt the impossible and try to be nice no matter what.......does whiskey help numb the pain of losing so much?

10, and it was all gone the next day.

On another note, I had my hair cut today. But I do agree with the OP. Sometimes you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, so if you're going to be in it whether you're good or bad, you may as well be all the way in it.

and that makes perfect sense, haha. I have it, but was too lazy to play it since I had the Gallant all rigged up and ready to go. My bad.

I asking for a subjective point of view, not stats. Two very different things. A person can tell very quickly if something is different based on how it feels when compared to something else, i.e. more sluggish? More reactive?.

For sure, but the difference in 'feel' (the best way I can explain it) is quite remarkable from the Gallant to the Jervis. Perhaps you're all right though. Does the Icarus play differently to the Gallant, i.e. does the gameplay feel different in terms of handling?

I want to start a petition that the next ranked (and it was 'rank' this year) season incorporate tier 1 and 2 gameplay up to rank 10, then we move to tier 7 for the remainder. At least this way we can force all those 'skilled' players to finally play some of the tiers they skipped when they purchased tier 8 premiums to help fund their tier 10 purchase without having learned the game.

I don't dislike the Gallant, I like the ship a lot, but she feels less 'solid' than many of her counterparts at tier 6, I think it might just be the way she handles in the water. Not sure, but there is a big difference in play compared to the Jervis which feels to me like a DD I can cause pain in.

Jervis at tier 7 feels great, a total contrast to the Gallant which feel very weak.

Yeh, same here. Is it a generational thing that people need to hero-worship so much?

I've come to the horrible realisation that I don't like the person I become when playing ranked. I swear, I flame, I insult, and I don't like it. Can't help myself though so perhaps playing ranked is something I need to stay away from, for my sake and for others too. I expect a lot from people, and given it's mostly tier 10 I expect people to know a little something about the game. Seeing them sometimes do the most stupid things just sends me over the cliff edge. I can lose one, it's ok. But fighting for 15 minutes for a star and then losing it next game in 2 minutes because the mm has put you alongside windowlickers is hard to swallow. We're not always on top form, but seriously, having someone with a 44% win rate try argue with you, or even better players who might be able to command their ship but have no map awareness, is incredulous. A bit harsh? Sure. Last night I lost it and had a raging argument with a cruiser chap who was so focussed on one cap he didn't want the enemy to get he ignored us telling him to slip past an island to help our bb who had two destroyers circling him. The win for us was so obvious it hurts, and easy too, but this guy ignored us and sailed straight to a cap zone. Our bb died, we lost. He then tried everything to justify his actions, which were plain and simple wrong.

Ever wonder how rich people get rich, the poorer people (like me) throw money at them. I can appreciate the interest generated by community contributors, but I just cannot justify doing what others do in the name of fandom. I think I'm jealous.

xxx_blogis_xxx in a ranked game. Was a bad game for his team, sry matey.

@op: I bought around 4 but got no dd missions, but ended up getting 3 from standard Royal Navy containers.

Hear Hear, I raise my glass in toast to signal my agreement to this wondrous proposal. We shall fight them on the beaches, our wallets shall come forth and earn us blessed favours and trophies, and those underlings herewith known as the worms of society shall no longer have favourable matchmaking.

Lot and lots of brit containers so far, not one brit ship mission.

A contradiction in terms. You said if you get stuck somewhere that's where your skill level is at. You also said you should be able to get top score if your team is so bad. Your assumption was overly simplistic and all I did was show you your argument failed to consider other factors. No point in bringing it all in now in hindsight is there? Is fairly obvious skilled player can influence teams and games, but not always. There are many other factors in play. Your response to the OP was to do what? Offer a little sarcasm? And yes, a valid excuse for a loss can certainly be based on the team too, not for every loss, but certainly a very valid excuse. After all, teams are set up 'randomly' by the mm. A shortfall of the mm is it fails to balance teams in terms of skill levels so each has a fairly even overall average. Everyone has to deal with it and the OP is doing just that. Or the way you imply he deal with it is to do it your way and get more skilled because this is what he needs to progress? In ranked? No, skill does help, but we all pretty much know all you need is extreme patience and a lot game time. I regard myself as fairly skilled, yet got stuck at rank 10 for two weeks or somewhere there, playing mostly dd's and ca's. The sad reality is ranked is less about skill and more about luck and patience. A guy pm'ed me a week ago and said 'I got to rank 2 b*£ch', and when I checked his stats he was a low 40 something % win rate player. His skill? Far below average. He's not the only one. Many people are just too simple minded and have marginal intelligence, and we have to live with them being in the ship next to ours, and it's fairly easy for them to get to rank 1 where we might be better, but get to hang around higher ranks for longer due to rotten luck and choosing a particular class to play that makes it far harder to progress. Rank battles are a cesspit of frustration, and WG have a lot of work to do beyond just a single player retaining his star on the losing team.

Almost everything you said is wrong. Skilled player in a dd will not always come tops because the class isn't rewarded enough for doing what dd's are expected to do for their team when a guy in a bb can sit back and farm damage. I tried this in my Yamato after getting stuck on rank 10 for two weeks, and then got my Yamato and played and have now progressed to rank 7 by often coming tops on damage alone and then late game tanking because I retained quite a few stars on lost games. Skill not needed for this mode at all. Ranked is competitive, that's a Barnum statement easily applied to any game where teams face off against each other and the reward or progression is based on the outcome.

On the flip side: 'they are only not a problem for those who do the killing with them or know how to play them'. Here's an idea, how about YOU pick a point of view that considers all sides fairly? I'm not calling them unfair because I suck at playing them. That's a conjunctive fallacy. There is no justice and objectivity in deciding an outcome beforehand because it's the one you prefer to believe and only then afterwards looking for argument to support it using bias reasoning to support your view? CV's add amazing variety to the game, they should stay, but they are broken and even WG admits it. How come you don't? Is this because you're peeved off they're changing something you are good at and which, due to their exploitive nature, allow you to own people who in many cases cannot offer a reasonable defence against you in game? And when they present you with an argument you infer they need to learn to play them, or are only complaining because they are killed by them? You do realise you are resorting to a form of ad hominem in doing so? I don't hate cv players, if I ever said so I stand corrected. A cv can singlehandedly dominate a game. In a ranked game last night we had a midway on either team, with me in my Yamato. Both cv players were good players obviously, ours marginally less skilled and the enemy cv more controlled it seemed. The game ended with our cv on 4 kills, and the enemy midway on 4. An effortless fight for them, a terrible and very unfun game for those of us in ships. Our team won, but most players from both teams were displeased at being so vulnerable to a class they had marginal defence against.

Can't wait for the cv rework. I suck at playing them and still like the idea of having them in game, but they are currently far too influential as a single vessel. CV mains or those that are very capable in them will no doubtedly fall prey to all their biases and defend the cv's as they currently are because it's, well, easy for them to influence battles on a massive scale. Those that die from single AP bomb drops, mass torpedo strikes and told they're noobs for not dodging them, those who don't rig their ships for AA because they only see cv's now and then and won't waste other valuable perks, those who don't have the def AA upgrade because the option is not there, or those in lower tier ships (8) suffering a strike from a tier 10 cv, etc, will no doubt (and in my personal view - quite justifiable) argue against the current cv game-state. We might not see them often and some of you argue how hard they are to play (which is subjective and I'm guessing this is simply a defensive response?), but they are a problem and need to change, stop resisting it and get with the programme. And no, they should NOT be allowed in ranked IMHO .

There's been mention here of 'you get your money's worth' in the boxes, but who sets the value here? Who decides whether 'we get our moneys worth'? Do we as players decide, whether we're happy with what we got, i.e. satisfies our expectations? Because if so, this is an extremely subjective area. Obviously WG decide, but who regulates them and how do they justify the cost of these items if they claim the contents of loot boxes are of equal or higher value to the money paid? How do we know we're not being charged too much? Are they relying on our trust of them operating fairly? My personal feeling is the price of a premium account is perfect, very very reasonable, the cost of premium ships perhaps too high (but still reasonably understandable), but the cost of consumables, and especially items like signals and camo's far too high. WG set a high tag on the latter value by adding them as rewards for missions, but in super low quantities, and we know being rewarded two flags here and there is pointless when they're lost on bad games in minutes and therefore offer highly variable outcomes. Just a thought and a difficult one at that, because a lot needs to be considered. Ultimately, companies who self-regulate are risky, and as players subbing to unregulated companies in this way we put ourselves at high risk of being exploited.

I would love to know what the ratio of free players is to premium players, but I'm reasonably sure they would have a higher number of premium players (irrespective of current ratio) if they offered more value for being a premium player. A monthly sub should bring more than just the game xp / cred perks, it should be more of a package, with every renewal offering proportionate rewards (depending on length of term). Premium players should be also rewarded to continuous unbroken subscriptions on maybe quarterly intervals. There is always a 'but' though, and the 'but' in the above scenario is why should WG offer more for premium when they're getting away with people renewing anyways without any of the above extra perks? Premium players are like the 'subbers' who provide a study stream of income for WG are they not? Surely this type of incentive will encourage more to join the ranks providing a higher stream, maybe encourage many borderline rubbers the push they need to hop onto the pay train?

True, and I agree in principal, but who sets the value on the content in the first place, i.e. regulated in any way?

From a very basic point of view I'm personally happy for randoms to stay as they are in terms of the mm, but for modes like ranked which are far more competitive, as in the title of the mode itself, WG should try as best as possible to always level the playing field as much as possible or at the very least change the way people progress by looking at individual performance rather than team-based match results only. We know top guy on the losing team keeps his star, but that marginalises players on the losing team who played far better than those who may have put in no effort on the winning team. Overall, there needs to be consistency and ranked battles have very little. This is rather lazy of WG imho since the mode, as we all know, is fiercely competitive. Earning stars is hard, but losing them because of afk'ers, suiciders, below-average people throwing games is ridiculous, and to reward a guy by letting him keep his star, who literally farmed damage, over someone who does all the things a team player should do and then some, is ludicrous and totally laughable. WG know this, and it's about time they act on it. Ranked needs to deliver skill based progression, not simply 'time put in' and 'quantity of games played'.

@OP: stop worrying about being reported, I live from one chat ban to the next. Some I deserve, some I hadn't said a word. We live in an age where boys no longer display the true courage of yesterday. Todays courage is people ganging up on a person / minority and causing them to suffer in some way. These gang bangers then walk away feeling like they've achieved some great feat, with a sense of bravado. They can't survive on their own and they have no courage on their own, they need to feed off the admiration of their peers and need some form of recognition. We live in the age of the mindless pack mentality where people no longer stand apart as individuals, but need to belong to a group, most as sheep, one or two as leaders. Get used to it. Also, creating a forum post about this is silly. No-one truly cares about any of this. You only set yourself up as a victim. Next time you see a guy thats given you a hard time in battle (or a clan) just spend all your reports on them and laugh to yourself. They'll wonder what they did wrong when they see they;ve been reported in the end game notifications.