Jump to content

Grimmblut

Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3093

About Grimmblut

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Grimmblut

    Reform of the team damage penality system needed

    Saying "you're not allowed to park in my smoke" is as retarded as saying "you're not allowed to fire on ships revealed by my radar". If you honestly think that it's okay to inflict team damage on one of your teammates because he dared to flee into your smoke to hide from enemy fire, then you're a prime example of everything that's wrong with this *edited*.
  2. This just happened and let me to the strong believe that the team damage penalty system must be reformed. Battle 1) I play as Chapayev and drive into a cap, together with 2 DDs of my team. Two enemy DDs are there as well and hide inside their smoke immediately. I have already been firing at them and now activate both sonar (to spot enemy torps) and my radar (to spot the enemy DDs in their smoke). The enemy DDs are revealed and I try to make the best of the next 20 seconds that my radar will allow me to fire on them. So they try to flee, and I'm - zoomed in - continue to fire on them. Suddenly two things happen almost simultaneously. First I hear the scratching noise of my ship colliding with another ship and I hear the audio message "Don't fire at your allies" followed by "A disciplinary penalty has been imposed" (or whatever that crap says). Turns out one of my allied DDs had, for some reasons, panicked, activated his smoke and had made a sharp turn right, setting a collision course towards my ship. The moment we collided, I had fired on the enemy DDs but scrapped his superstructure with a part of the salvo for 1697 damage. I continued the battle, which was eventually won by my team with me doing over 58k damage. See attached screenshots. I received "teamkiller status" for the next two matches. Of course I'm somewhat annoyed but decide to play on and just struggle through the penalty. Battle 2) Again I play as Chapayev. The battle goes well although I'm underdog with my Chapayev against several T9 ships at my flank. An allied Neptune activates smoke and stops inside the line of smoke it has created. I go inside the smoke as well, just at the backmost edge. We both keep firing on an enemy BB. Suddenly I see the Neptune backing up, right into my direction. So I go into reverse as well and stop firing. Nevertheless, he manages to scrap my foreship for a ridiculous low amount of damage - and I receive an additional penalty for teamdamage. I continue to play the match, again we are victorious, but when I get out of battle, I receive the message that my penalty is extended by one more battle. Listen, I'm all for a penalty system that punishes disruptive behaviour. As a beta player, I remember too well how it was when there was absolutely no penalty for any amount of team damage and team kills and I remember that, when you played at night with only a few players available, it may happen that you had to stop playing that night because the chance that your matches would be ruined by the same ahole again and again and again that night was close to 80%. I know that such an automatic system can never be perfect. But what Wargaming has inflicted upon it's playerbase with this cheap excuse of a badly designed penalty system is as worse as having none at all. Wargaming devs, can you PLEASE put your heads together and come up with a penalty system that actually works? My suggestion is to change the system in a way that decides at the end of a battle whether a penalty should be given or not. E.g. don't give a penalty for a one time accident (all damage within 10 seconds) if the inflicted damage is less than 5% of the players total damage in the battle.
  3. Grimmblut

    Suggestions thread

    Please remove CVs from ranked matches. There's a reason why there's only a single T10 CV per 12-player random battle per side and that reason is that they are so much more powerful and influence the match outcome so much more than any other ship class. There are a lot of discussions going on about T10 CVs in random matches (that are 12 players vs. 12 players) with a lot of players asking for a nerf or total banishment of T10 CVs. Regarding ranked matches, where there are only 7 players per side, the impact of T10 CVs is unbearable. It's not just a matter of "having to adapt one's playstyle". The side with the worse CV player will lose. That's it. Even worse, although the whole team has to suffer from the fact that they lost because their CV player was worse than the other team's CV, the losing side's CV player may still place #1 in his team, just because of the immense damage output of a T10 ship and the points from scouting enemy ships that then received damage from incoming fire. I had very few matches in ranked mode where the CV player of the losing team wasn't placed #1 in his team.
  4. Grimmblut

    Team damage penalty in ranked matches

    Guys, you are missing the point of this thread. It's not about whether or not team damage should be penalized. It's not about who's to blame when a friendly ship gets hit by a torpedo. It's about the fact that the current system punishes the whole team.
  5. Grimmblut

    Team damage penalty in ranked matches

    Hi, so I witnessed this twice today in ranked battles: A CA fires torpedo salvos, an allied battleship changes course into the path of the torps and gets hit by a single torpedo. Those BBs were not sunk by the torpedo. A few seconds later, the CA turns pink and explodes. Both CA were at full or almost full health. The kill message reads that the player had killed himself. Listen, I'm all for penalties for causing team damage, but this procedure doomes the whole team to a certain loss.
  6. Grimmblut

    Ranked Season Guide (WIP)

    Die Hipper ist ein hervorragender DD-Jäger. Der Spieler muss sie allerdings entsprechend spielen.
  7. Grimmblut

    Ranked Season Guide (WIP)

    Überall außerhalb des 2-5er Bereichs besteht das Problem, dass Leute die Ranked Matches nutzen um ihre Daylies runterzuspielen. Das sollte von WG abgestellt werden. Keine Daylies durch Ranked Matches - das würde die Spielqualität deutlich erhöhen.
  8. Besucht uns im TS und hört mir dabei zu wie ich zum dritten mal am selben Tag einen Stern vor Rang 1 stehe und verliere. Ein unvergleichliches Erlebnis und eine garantierte Erweiterung eures Wortschatzes an Schimpfwörtern.
  9. Hi, es geht um das hier: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/37912-wettbewerb-ausgezeichnete-leistung/ Es wird wirklich mit aller Kraft von Seiten WG's den Trägerfahrern in's Gesicht gespuckt. Torpedo- und Bombentreffer zählen nicht, genau so wenig wie Flugzeugabschüsse (!!). Dafür zählen aber Zitadellentreffer, die für einen Träger unmöglich zu holen sind. Eroberungsauszeichnungen zählen natürlich auch, von denen ein Trägerfahrer ebenfalls faktisch nie eine sehen wird. Wer kriegt dagegen Feuerabzeichen, Eroberungsabzeichen, Kritische-Treffer-Abzeichen und Flutabzeichen? Richtig. Zerstörer! Von denen es allein in den Ranked Matches immer zwischen sechs und 10 im Match gibt (bei 14 Plätzen!). Ich gönne jedem den Sieg, wenn der Wettbewerb fair ist. Einen Wettbewerb zu veranstalten, bei dem manche Spieler aber de facto ausgeschlossen werden, ist lausig. Das hier wäre mein Beitrag zum Wettbewerb gewesen, den ich mir aber leider wegen fehlendem Screenshot der Teamauswertung (WAS EIN WITZ!) an den Hut stecken kann. Ich hätte ihn ja gerne eingereicht, nur um zu zeigen, dass man aufgrund der Bewertungsregeln als CV-Fahrer keine Chance auf nen Blumentopf hat.
  10. Grimmblut

    New exploit in Ranked Matches

    One of my clanmates was rank 4 and was put in a battle with me when I was rank 8.
  11. Grimmblut

    CV Wartezeiten unerträglich

    CVs sind für das TEAM gegen DDs effektiv. Solange WG den Trägern für das Aufklären von DDs keine XP/Credits gibt, machen CVs damit nur Verluste. Man kann von niemandem erwarten, dass er den Kopf für andere hinhält.
  12. Grimmblut

    Buffed Artikel zum 5.2 Patch

    Ja, aber er wird dich nur mit einem Bruchteil seiner Torps treffen. Wenn er in Deiner AA-Reichweite und vielleicht noch in der AA-Reichweite von anderen Schiffen seine Flieger herummanövrieren muss, dann sind beim Drop schon mal weniger in der Luft als vorher, ergo auch weniger Fische im Wasser. Von den Torps, die dann im Wasser sind, treffen, wenn kein Kreuzer in der Nähe sein Sperrfeuer angeworfen hat und kein Katapultjäger an den Bombern dranklebt, vielleicht 50%. Lass das von mir aus 4 Torps sein. Die machen an einem BB seit dem letzten Nerf für Flugzeugtorpedos 5k bis 6k Schaden. Im Idealfall für den CV sind das 24k Schaden, von denen Du aber den Großteil als BB wieder hochreparieren kannst. Der CV braucht aber für Start, Hinflug, Rückflug, Landen und Wiederbewaffnen - ebenfalls nach dem letzten CV-Nerf, der die Landezeit verdoppelt bis verdreifacht hat - vier bis sechs Minuten, je nach Entfernung und Anzahl der Staffeln. CVs standen in der Schadensstatistik gut da. Es wird dabei aber vergessen, dass sie ihren meisten Schaden an BBs machen, dieser Schaden aber - im Gegensatz zu Zitadellenschaden (!) - zu einem großen Teil wieder von den BBs hochrepariert werden kann. CVs sind außerdem deswegen so verhasst, weil sie einen hohen Burstschaden haben. Wer auf einen Schlag die Hälfte seiner Lebenspunkte verliert ist davon subjektiv mehr entsetzt, als wenn er sie über die Dauer der ersten Hälfte des Gefechtes verliert, auch wenn das Ergebnis gleich ist. Der letzte Sargnagel für CVs sind dann die eben doch in großer Zahl vertretenen schlechten Spieler, die ihr Bahngleis abfahren und die Torpedobomber erst beim Einschlag der Torpedos mitbekommen - dann aber um so lauter im Forum darüber fluchen. 24k Schaden, die man hochreppen kann, ist eine Sache, aber von voll auf tot eine andere.
  13. Grimmblut

    New exploit in Ranked Matches

    Hi, get your tinfoil hat out, it's story time. You may have noticed this point in the patch notes 0.5.0.2: In ranked battles, added a system check that penalizes players for leaving the battle before their ship is sunk. In such a situation, the player will not be awarded a "star" in the event of a victory This was WG's reaction to players who would join a Ranked Match with a ship, immediately exit the match, then join the next Ranked Match with another ship and so on, hoping that more matches would be won than lost. Apparently this was a huge problem on the russian servers. Now it seems that, with WG's new changes to the Ranked Match system, a new exploit has been found, and is thoroughly used on EU servers as well as other servers. During the last seasons, there were 25 ranks. The first five ranks were irrevocable, which means that once you've reached a new rank, you couldn't lose it, no matter how many matches you lose. In the new Ranked Match system, this has been changed to a milestone system, e.g. once you reach rank 10, you can't drop below that rank no matter how often you lose, same for rank 5 etc. Something that's hasn't been realized by many is, however, that the range of ranks from which your teammates and opponents are drawn goes beyond those milestones. That means, you may be rank 10, but may have players of rank 4 or so in your match. Now here comes the exploit: Some people group up (the more the better) and click at the same moment "join battle" for Ranked Matches. It's quite likely that they will be put in the same match, especially if they make sure to select different types of ships. Some members of the group are selected to be "pushed". That means that if players of the group, who help to push them, are put in the opposing team, these players will deliberately help the other team (with their "push" mates in it) to win. How does that make sense and what do they get from it? Remember the new milestone system! Once their buddies are pushed beyond the next milestone (e.g from 10 to 5), they can't lose that rank. Now the members of the group change roles. The guys left behind at rank 10 e.g. with 0 stars (because they have lost match after match to push their buddies) will be pushed to rank 5 and their buddies will now lose match after match for them, because they are already at rank 5 and can't lose that rank. Although I've never taken part in such an exploit, I've been eavesdropping on some guys while I was on some random TS server last night. Either that whole milestone system got to go or WG has to finally come up with a system that doesn't promote the whole winning team, while the whole losing team gets demoted.
  14. Grimmblut

    Buffed Artikel zum 5.2 Patch

    Stimmt. Viele Leute verstehen nicht, dass "CV raus" nicht einfach das alte WoWS bedeutet, nur ohne CVs, sondern das damit die gesamte Spielbalance umgeworfen wird. Es ist schon bereits jetzt zu sehen, wie über "unsichtbare DDs" in den Foren genau so gehetzt wird wie früher über CVs. Kein Wunder, wenn nur extrem selten mal ein CV da ist, der die DDs aufklärt und mit seinen Staffeln beleuchtet hält. In den Ranked Matches sind Spiele mit drei oder vier DDs auf jeder Seite die Regel. CVs sieht man quasi nicht mehr. Ich glaube mit den CV-Nerfs wird uns noch so einiges unangenehm auf die Füße fallen und selbst wenn WG irgendwann (vermutlich mal wieder völlig übertrieben) gegenregeln sollte, sind die CV-Spieler dann schon vergrault.
  15. Grimmblut

    can you stop rewarding bad players in ranked

    I see your point. Two questions arise in this regard: What actions could a player take that give him more XP than other actions while at the same time being less beneficial for the team? All means to get XP are useful for your team. I can hardly imagine a scenario where gaining more XP is at the same time less beneficial for your team. How likely is it that those actions will worsen the fairness of the ranked matches compared to the current situation, where AFK/TK/slacker-players of the winning team receive a star while one or more very skillful players of the losing team lose a star?
×