AgarwaenME

That too.. and well it messes up a setup you like to use in regular battles that you also have to revert to after the season. Though I fancy a lot of people who wants to play this seriously would respecc to suit team comp anyways. However, you can't "respecc" a groz to get something back from it's AAA, and trading def fire for sonar on the DM is a far less viable option than doing the same for a Hindenburg. Beyond that, it's just dumb to give the usual CV hating brigade you know will come to this thread to lie and troll something to refer to as "evidence".

This also effectively removes a lot of ships who pays for in other combat abilities by having better than usual AAA, and allows a lot of ships that usually would specc (and/or use defensive fire) to have speccs for maximum radar/sonar, dealing damage or raw survivability. It more or less breaks the current ship balance even more,

You'd get more intelligent replies if you argued with Eliza tbh.

The Universal Translator.

Well, that was fairly evident tbh. Just the same massivly childish idea you see in other games, where they think one class is "bad" for whatever childish reasons and thus can use it to justify attacks on people who play it, no matter if they play every other available class at a far higher level than they do themselves too. It's just a bit rare to see people actually going "I'm going to tell you I'm going to use an ad hominem" though.

So basicly what you're saying is "I intend to use an ad hominem, but not even make any argument about the topic". So ye, that does indeed tell a lot about you. "Troll" for one thing. Also, if you don't care about my amount of battles, why do you specificly refer to my amount of battles? What would the point be, unless you want to make a point of your own lacking experience?

You really have nothing do you. /I also have more battles than you in every class of ship.. but then so effing what? How's that related to this topic at all?

Because a 47% player can't ever sink anyone in any ship?

You confuse "making a decision" with "having never heard about it". Talk about strawmen indeed. Also there's really nothing you gain from any of that, which could be called a gameplay advantage. Again, this is just trying to make comparisons where none applies.

What part of "you can still get as many as you have time for" is so hard to understand? Nor is the inability to get 10 or 20 going to be an issue in competitive game modes, where a single (or a couple for more options) will suffice. You keep pretending that "I played a lot of battles in a lot of different ships, so now I have a large variety available to me, giving me more options but no actual advantage in any of the options I might use" is in any way the same as "I started playing early enough/Happened to be playing the week it was available, so now I have an advantage it's impossible for others to aquire" is in any way they same. They aren't.

But you can get more 19 pointers, there's no artificial cap where say, one nation of yours is permanently capped at 18. That's the difference. You won't be permanently less usable in a clan (or find it that much harder to get recruited) because they want to maximise their chances.

A "special snowflake" in this context is someone who thinks that just because he might have started playing a week before someone else, or because he had time when someone else did not, that this then warrants a permanent gameplay advantage. That captain actually IS a participation trophy given the minimal effort it actually took And people who plays more already gets a lot of advantages over those who play less. What people like me feel wrong about though, is having a permanent advantage, because as real gamers this just doesn't fit our view of games.

Finished all of them. Only had to move a captain (to the bis) and buy a st.louis. The requirements were mostly fairly simple also, though I didn't have to attempt any of them in the lousiest possible ships for them. Getting the final achieve is a nice touch for those who actually plays a wide range of ships (seemed to come with 2mill credits bonus too, or at least I can't see any other source for getting those at the same time), with all the actual "rewards" (ie cammos) being easy go get from just doing a couple of them multiple times. No CV achievement though, but then WG have done little to nothing for them the last year. And a couple could maybe have gotten a broader range of ships allowable (like the bismarck one). None of them really required playing stupidly though.

I'd say it would be fairly "hard" feelings just by that post alone, but if you can't be arsed reading what I say, don't then reply to any of it since you might stick your foot in your mouth like you just did, or "gasp" hear a different viewpoint from what you want to hear. As I said, I merely accept your apology, so there's no further need for you to reply and try to hide an insult in that reply.

Ah, so one of the "sticking my fingers in my ears to not hear things I don't agree with" sort. Well this is what happens when you try to avoid seeing anyone who might have different viewpoints, you make posts based on a narrow (and given how you jumped out to attack, from personal bias) viewpoint. Apology accepted though.

Er.. I'm not sure what you're on about, as my point was that it becomes worse in competitive, not that it's not an issue elsewhere. As should be clear by my earlier posts in this thread.

It's not merely bad for handing out an advantage, but it carries onto clan/community issues. It would hardly surprise me to see recruitments like these "looking for member for clan battles. We need someone to play ship X. Only players with legendary captain Y trained for it may apply.". Especially given how many similar requirements I've seen people have in games where such specific things would be fleeting (pun no intended) unlike an advantage that you might never be able to attain.

It's often a case of Dunning-Kruger. Or simply not realising that there's a reason why veterans don't go there, and ask you not go to there, and that that their "amazing new clever idea" really is just a "old bad idea that people learned not to try".

I assume this is a parody of people going "but I want to have a gameplay advantage over others just because I played on a week they did not!!!"

But these do not have to be ones that gives a gameplay advantage. You could easily merely add such a captain during the event, with some added bonus for those who got him during it (perm cammo or some other non gameplay advantage thing) and then leave him available through some mean (even one that would actually take more effort).

Every ARP ship is the same as easily available tech tree ships with a slight drawback (no cammo bonuses). They're however a "bonus" if you like grinding daily bonuses (particularly on 3x weekends etc). Any of the "legendary" captains are strictly better and gives a straight gameplay advantage. This is not comparable.

Because a permanent advantage people can't even work towards themselves is a bad idea in a pvp game. More than that, it's semi gamebreaking in a competitive enviroment.

Lets just retell this as it actually happened, and less as you seem forced to twist reality into to cover for your clan mates behaviour. I go in first, as basicly the ONLY BB to be the focused target (with my division mates). YOU and the other BBs hang back. As I'm down to a sliver of hp, having been focused by their CV, a smoked kutusov, 3 BBs and a DD, burning, with dmc and repair on CD (yet still with several repairs to use, and a lot of potential healing from being on fire for 5 minutes straight), I have to twist my way past the other BBs (including you) going sideways to the battle lobbing shells yet doing nothing to take any heat away from me. Including them not going anywhere near enough to use secondaries (again you included, though as you had nothing like the secondary range of most of our team I didn't really think much about that). (was it my scratching your paint as I did my best to angle against 5 enemy ships firing at me that sent you two off into kindergarten land? maybe) (And no, 15k hp, burning with no CDs available isn't "complaining you got shot at", and my 115k damage received at the end certainly tells enough of me not running away from getting shot at. Well, beyond being the FIRST BB to push, while, again, you were sitting behind yourself.) As I'm finding a little cover, getting a little hp back up, so I can actually be able to re-engage, I see our two full HP T8 BBs head for the corner of the map. I then ask them to take part in the battle, upon which cherry2blost starts a series of insults and personal attacks basicly out of the blue. After a little of that he then hurriedly tries to find some justification for it, and a little later you join in, apparently out of an obligation to twist reality into his behaviour being in any way justified. By this time, with two T8 BBs actually not taking part, the battle is basicly over. As for who where "less" offensive, you can't honestly think this in any way was an equal situation. Particularly as I had said nothing about him before he started his tirade.

So it means nothing to those who either didn't really play all that much, or started far more recently. These rewards scale with the dedication you've had to the game.

Except prior an IJN CV could just throw his fighter at the USN fighters to occupy them, as he used his far larger strike package to deal enough damage to be a much larger threat. The ability for fewer but larger squads to annihilate multiple smaller ones is a larger advantage for the USN CVs. And the reason Saipan is "broken" is far less the ammo (since USN overall have a huge amount) but that they can leave an engagement without losing planes, combined with extremely fast planes compared to their opposition, making them able to far more easily do the tricks needed to dominate the skies.