AgarwaenME

And that's exactly the point. Just as with the other thread about bot AI people attribute all sorts of "clever" or "intentional" things to them, when all they have is pretty simplistic behaviour. Of course they can avoid enemy torps (they don't really seem to treat "friendly" torps as threats), aim well, focus fire or find players, because all this data is there.. on the server.. for the server to use. What people are seeing is low effort work by WG through the filter of "WG always conspires against me".

Just in case you're not just joking.. I hope for your sake you are. We're all playing on the SAME server. Game development is not done by the same people administrating and maintaining the servers and other infrastructure. They're not sending some server tech to do modeling for subs. And "nobody asked for it" is just ridiculous, as you have no ways of having asked everyone if they did.

A dimwit would be one who thinks WG is rigging the game against him personally.

So you just threw out words out of context and with no relevance.

You're claiming that "too much sound" causes DC's... that's just a load of bollocks.

You're not so amazing (lets be honest, just a bit above average) that you haven't had such results or worse yourself.

You have no idea what any of those words means it seems.

Again. This behaviour is the same they had before that skill was added. Bots simply aren't programmed with spotting mechanics in mind, the server is just vectoring them onto players because the server has all the data. It's just all that much simpler to code AI like this, than trying to code an AI that actively searches. They just won't fire unless spotting mechanics says they should see you, and will ignore players in smoke.

Well, they don't as much have rpf, as that they're run by the server who damn well know where you are since the AI just isn't made clever enough to actively go search like a player would.

An 8 battle sample size? You won 3 out of 8 when 4 out of 8 would be closest to your expected rate of wins, that's not shocking.

For the raffle yes. The "competitive" part says base xp, which is fine as it levels the field for those without stacks of signals, cammos, premium and loads of ships to get the daily bonus on.

The point is, until you've gotten to ships were you learn their expected abilities and weaknesses, and how captains support them, then (aside the silly extreme of "dd dying in 2 minutes" which is just hyperbole) then you're going to end up dying to thinks you don't understand.

Most ship lines makes little sense in the context of what you're really expected to be doing until t5, nor will a new player have a reasonable captain on a ship (10pt+) until into t6 or even longer. So t6-t7 is a reasonable time to have learned how whatever line you're playing is expected to behave and work in practical terms. However the longer the game lasts it will take longer for a new player to get some grasp on how the ship lines they haven't touched will be to combat too. It's not like this forum isn't filled with threads from people complaining that this or that is op as they have only the slightest slimmer of an idea on what the limitations and capabilities of those ships actually are.

Ye, I just wonder how it works in terms of total player base, ie how many actual battles. Do they even show the count of logged in players anywhere now?

Well that's more than the last numbers I read. Though does those numbers also show total number of players?

And this is why the rework failed. There's no real increase in players playing high tier CVs, DDs are still the most vulnerable (just that nowadays there's loads of DDs without smoke too) even though BBabies will forever whine the most about CVs. The actual gameplay for CVs now is.. for me personally just not really rewarding, as it feels mostly like you're just shuttling planes to and fro, without the grander scale tactics and overview needed. Flak is badly implemented (quite frankly I think it would be better to just remove it and just make AAA more similar to before), or at least make flak bursts random enough to not just allow the same approach to avoid it. There are many ways the original CVs could have been changed, but even the most basic change requested by CV players of that time, and one agreed to by people not playing them (a few die hard CV haters aside who simply wanted them removed, granted they've been replaced by a new breed of CV haters nowadays), ie to just even damage potential across tiers (IJN TBs had the same torps from t4-t7, making them over the top at the start and very weak before the step up to t8), and leveling the AAA curve to reduce the no fly zones and the free fly zones, preferably by making AAA stronger but giving a penalty to stacking AAA auras. But instead they went ahead to completely redo it, and having to start from scratch to balance both CVs and the capabilities of ships to fight them. In the end, same with other nerfs (to torps, stealth fire, HE, cap skills etc etc) is the resulting unintended consequences that just ends up blowing up on these forums in whine threads from the same people who wanted things changed to their favour in the first place.

Good sarcasm requires you to first not have said something so absurdly dumb as to make you a laughing stock. But do continue trying. /also.. "logic" you can't even explain yourself.. that's a good one, I'll spend ... 2 seconds laughing at that.

You chose to reply to me, had to scramble to pretend that what you said wasn't as absurdly ridiculous as it was, and now you're annoyed you get responded back to? And as you can't manage to stop notifications, being so amazingly intelligent, you're asking here showing everyone you're just full of manure. You can't make this up if you tried.

Sorry, that's just an absurd example. Especially as you first define it as "murder" not a "lawfull killing" and then tries to ask if he'd be a murderer. If the term murder implied a crime in that country, then whatever reason for killing someone would not be a murder, no matter if you in some other country would define it as such. And I think you know this, you're not as dumb as the other guys trying to defend this. If you really just want to generalize and insult players, by all means do so if you so desperately want to do it, I just don't see how you think that will be productive. Especially as nerf cries and whining like this is what got us the CV rework in the first place (as it did with so many things).

I didn't realise we had Trump on the forums. But runaway now, adults are speaking.

As I said, you had nothing, and you still have nothing. But thanks for playing.

Well there's a word for that, ad hominem. It's just a generic insult used to generalize an entire group of players, and it's sad you can't see how bad that is. It doesn't help your cause (no matter how immune WG is to constructive critique) and all it does is make YOU seem bad. Nor would your second example make that player a cheater. By definition he would not be.

A typical reply from someone who has no way to justify what he said.