AgarwaenME

Ie, "I don't have absolutely every information, and I don't want to believe WG, so you should believe anyone who makes claims with no evidence or even against evidence". "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"

The point is rather, that while there are uses for "leather" armour, it's not in any way similar to the fantazy fiction version of it, with the only small advantage for actual boiled leather over steel being weight and cost, because anything that provides protection like that is going to need to cover the same parts of the body, and hinder movement and visibility somewhat similarly. As for weapons, swords (as I keep pointing out) were sidearms even for knights/men at arms, as spears and other polearms were your proper weapon for warfare, irrespective of cost to make. Nor were they your only backup weapons, as things like Rondels were a staple. As a fully armoured knight, you'd want something like this. A weapon well suited to fight a fully armoured opponent, but also quite effective (though maybe not quite as effective as say a falchion) at cutting down peasant leavies. And crossbows (and bows), armour was very effective against them, which is why people kept wearing it. Even if a lucky hit can get through a gap and kill someone, you'd still much rather have to be unlucky than just having to get hit anywhere. A fully armoured knight would be just as worried about a spear, or even more about 4-5 opponents brawling him down and sticking rondels into his armpits, groin or face.

Really? You make a thread with the preconceived assumption that they "manipulate" it (and don't pretend you don't use that in the negative context), and asks "how much" they're doing it. There's no strawman in attacking this, it's what it is. And voting on facts based on "feelings (not that you said it was this vote was on "feelings" either)? What's next, votes on how much you "feel" the earth is round?

That is not different from european armours, and knights certainly rode and learned to use ranged weapons. Btw, a full set of japanese armour wasn't significantly lighter than full european plate harnesses. Again, as far as warfare goes, swordsmanship is a minor bit, as swords are sidearms and no more important than a pistol is to a modern soldier.

As funny as you thinking it "manipulate" with no actual evidence?

Spending your time aiming for leather straps, who'd mostly be in places not easy to hit, even in the back of the opponent, while the opponent is busy sticking his steel into fleshy bits of you, is not a good way to spend your time. If you had such amazing ability that you could selectively cut metal straps on an opponent you might aswell just go directly for the lesser protected areas. (nor would a katana be "better" at this than other weapons). Also, as already mentions, padded cloth armours were by far the most common type of armour (both by itself, and as a part/padding to other armours).

You'd be surprised :P But in the end leather has a lot of drawbacks as armour, being just not actually better than padded cloth, harder to repair and much more time consuming to make. Leather is nice as a backing, or for straps and fasterners though.

Ye, bits and pieces, even some leather hauberks. But these would be treated until they were as stiff as possible, so very far from the type of thing that would reduce your mobility by next to nothing but also provide actual protection. Full sets of "leather armour" is just fantazy, likely due to confusion about brigandines etc (where you mostly see the leather that's covering up and holding together the actual metal that protects you, but which are as heavy as metal armour choices, being it plate or mail). What was very common was cloth based armours, gambesons/aketons, who were quite effective (and cheap) and also used as padding under metal armours.

You don't base warfare on killing people by "bloodloss". You want to disable people by severing limbs or tendons, or stick some poky bit far enough into someone to kill/disable them quickly. There's nothing about japanese warfare that would make them more "mobile". Katanas are basicly, short heavy two-handed sabres made with the materials available to the crafters (which is why they're so heavy), and they (as arming swords and similar) were sidearms in a warfare context. Also, halberds weren't really the prefered weapon for fully armoured knights, pollaxes were (and partially longswords), ie. weapons suited to both fight fully armoured combatants, and also lighter to mostly unarmoured ones. /and there's really no such thing as "leather" armour. It's an RPG trope, not based much on reality.

So by this I assume you can provide factual evidence for these "methods"?

I already explained. If you need help I can spell it out slowly.

It's quality enough for this needy tinfoil hat drivel.

You're confusing "entirely random" and "a random selection of what's actually possible".

The purpose is clear, you need some way to protect your ego when results<expectations. Pretty hilarious when you accuse others of having premade conclusions too.

This just isn't true. First of all they did use fighters (the full strike loadouts the USN used for 2 years didn't exist). Nor were they "obscenely" popular, or really popular at all compared to other classes. And manual attack was just as much better than auto that it is now. If anything auto drops are quite a bit better now. The real difference is that with no strafe it was very easy to target CVs first, you just used your fighters to occupy the enemies fighters and went straight for the CV, especially if you were up against a lower tier one, or were 2v1 CVs.

I suggest you uninstall the game, and never ever again play anything but solo play games.

Have anyone "noticed" that some people will say repeat themselves year after year how much worse something is getting, or that it's entirely broken, and somehow it can be more than entirely broken and getting even worse and even worse and that every patch ruined the game forever?

Giving the power to the players is the worst possible solution.

CW had a very similar situation as the higher leagues had to be populated, and there weren't really at all a very similar amount in each league or group within leagues, probably as CW seemed to give out a lot more points for wins than what was lose to losses. Queue times really shouldn't be affected much at all, at most there would be a slight extra delay to populate higher MM groups. People stopping to play ranked during a season really shouldn't affect this at all. Again it's just a slight buffer between the different tiers of MM. And people complaining isn't really something worth considering.

It's basicly how CW works, so it's hardly too complicated. And since you'd play those battles against other at your rank, it would at most make for a small delay until you have the top rank fully populated. And sure, while it might be annoying to have to do it if you drop under, the process required to drop down would make it far less likely for a capable player. And again, you would not actually lose (or gain) any stars from this. And while it might not stop many terribads from reaching r5 (or r12 or wheverever else you might add such a rank) it would give them the same issues every time they had to try it again, and again, and keep the worse players in the lower MM for more of the time.

Sure, but there would really be no lack of people coming up from below. And again, the point would just be to limit you to that t6 MM a little longer, and the stars you won from those battles would carry forward. Ie, if you're promoted you actually have both 2-3 stars to start out with, and would need to lose 3/5 if you lost those to get demoted. Ie you'd have less jumping up and down between the brackets without having to add ranks you can't drop down from.

Tbh a better way there would be some sort of border to not make it just about getting one win to slip over it. Maybe take a note from CW. When you're one star away from say, getting to r5, you have to win 3 out of 5 battles against a mix of teams with higher and lower MM, and if you do, you go to r5 with the those stars "banked" or back to r6 with those stars lost. /it might be the lateness of me getting to top MM that made it look like it, but I couldn't see some massive difference between r5 and r6.

Ye, but the point there is that your overall extra wins would help you get past that point even against a bad streak of games. And in the case of those who have these streaks way more often due to their own failings, will ensure they can't just fish for one lucky streak to progress. Anyhow, it was just an example of some idea to help reduce frustrations, I'm sure there's better ways.

As long as you barely get xp for anything other than damage or caps, going with XP as measuring stick will only force people who wants to rank up to pick ships or fight for the things that gives XP. It's already enough toxic play with people literally playing against their own team to max out xp before even looking for a win. Penalizing someone who spent most of a battle spotting, kiting or whatever else by not even giving them a star on a win, and guarantee it on a loss is a really bad idea. A simpler idea would be to just hand out bonus stars for X amount of stars gained, and remove a star for X amount of stars lost. Thus it's less frustrating for those who do reliably win more than they lose, and it would make it nigh impossible to get to high ranks by just spamming battles until they get a nice lucky win streak.