Figment

Could a time limit in which the basics should first be learned (at least some) be considered a severe limitation? Or rather, should it not be considered to ensure you'll have a bit more experience, thus resulting in better play, better results and thus a more pleasant experience after purchasing the unit in question? It would mean many players who now come to the forums to complain about a specific class of ships or specific units to have a better grasp of what is expected from them and what playstyles exist and have to be applied. That would also help in making the unit feel worth the (at times rather ridiculous) prices. I also think new players should be protected from spending large sums of money before they know what they are buying.

Sorry, no can do. I take my time to explain my position and nuance a lot for a reason. If you're trying to insinuate some people here don't have the concentration span to pick up more than one sentence or maybe a few alinea, then maybe they're not suited to take part in a debate with multiple points of nuanced views in the first place. I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt that they can understand it if they took the time to btw, but am under the impression it's more of a choice to... "streamline" someone's posts. Maybe because they're either really busy people, or just really not all that interested in what other people have to say. But I'd really like to hear where this "too many draws" argument comes from. Because I'm really curious what constitutes too few, few, some, many, too many. etc. BEFORE people bring up "solutions" without even setting a goal.

I think it's a shitty way of claiming a win you're not entitled to just because one can't stomach you lost a win to one guy. 'Oh my, my ego can't handle a draw" is all I keep reading from those who wish to pretty much remove draws from the game entirely because they can't stomach the idea of not winning. Have some respect for your opposition. You didn't achieve the goals you were set out to achieve. Just because you've been unable to do so doesn't mean the bar should be lowered. There are MANY people who can achieve victory in 60, even 80% of their matches. That means it's entirely feasible to NOT draw in time. Just because some people can't stomach that they're not good enough to achieve this same rate of wins, for whatever they're doing different, in many cases probably simply being too cautious or too easily distracted to watch the time, I'm sorry. YOU DIDN'T WIN. Deal with it. If draws were more than 50% of the matches, well okay, more than 33% of the matches, THEN you'd have reason to believe there's too many draws. As is, it's just one of three possible outcomes and one that respects BOTH sides fairly. A draw right now doesn't discriminate in favour of a winning side, but this is what you're asking to do. You want to create new winning conditions. Just because a football team is down one man from the other team doesn't mean they'd lose by default if the match continued. If the other 11 are incapable of completing the objectives in time (score), then you just draw if it's a normal match. There's an extension or even penalty shoot-out if it's a tournament and neither side is capable of actually scoring enough to best the other team within the time constraints. The real problem here is you lot don't see this as a sports match, but as a bully deathmatch where the biggest bully at the end wins, just because he's an inch taller. I'm sorry, but this is a Team King of the Hill game. NOT a death match. The only reason the deathmatch condition is in is because when the enemy team is gone, there's nobody stopping you from taking the objective anymore.

@Leonadios: that spread looks like that under that angle. Ever considered an angle at an angle when panicked? It actually may increase the chance of hitting a cruiser if done right.

You're right, you don't get me. And no, what I discussed with EsaTuu isn't what you want. It doesn't even come close to what you want. Because what you want and have suggested and supported is virtually default wins whenever you get a numerical advantage or simply have a minor position advantage (that could easily change), largely removing the tactical element from the game. I want draws to have meaning. 6% draws is nothing. 20% draws is nothing. My drawrate is 10% the size of my win rate. It's nothing. And it should be lower if teammembers hadn't been so dumb and selfish and undid the actions I or others took to get us in an extremely likely win position. In fact, I would say 40% of my lost matches come from the same situations. My suggestions are therefore A. hypothetical optimal options (I don't need them implemented) B. Are designed to fit a "you can make a draw happen anyway". Like refusing to cap with three (all go after a ship), then waiting till the other team gets in the cap (even if it was clear from the map they'd get there within 20 seconds after they all left the cap), then only returning into cap at 60% home cap lost, it gets reset, third ship tried to make it back across the map in a battleship, rather than simply help cap. Or seeing a 2K Kuma and a 30K Kongo (Kuma was there first) in cap and then firing all you have at the Kongo, staying out of the cap circle and dieing without taking even one shot at the Kuma. People doing stupid things like that cost me a lot of needless draws and losses and it frankly pisses me off. The difference between us is I say "fair play to the enemy team, our team, as a whole, clearly didn't deserve it, cause we had idiots on our team. Unfortunate, annoying, frustrating etc., but it was our fault for not winning, not the game or the enemy". In fact, you never listened to me, because I've been saying I've discussed and suggested various draw mechanics in much more detail and that you completely ignore my stance and comments on it continuously. Why? Because you've been trying to strawman me and put me in a corner due to your bias all along. And let's not even begin about your attempts at character murder. What we disagree on, mainly, is that you blame the game mechanics, wheras I primarily blame the players and feel that stats should not placate players, but represent their abilities, whereas you want stats to appease players even if they don't deserve it. And mostly to sooth your own ego and frustrations. I find that petty and a bad argument. The truth is there's ample time to complete the objectives set and it's also true that most players squander this time, because they are simply incompetent, time wasting route plotting (as if you could call that farting in a general direction sailing plotting...), cowardice, greedy and have stupid decisionmaking the likes of which make you want to believe in a god to explain the lack of common sense of people in a really basic game, thereby in my opinion forfeiting their right to a win over people who are better, or also are all of the above, but managed to simply hold off the enemy long enough to win or draw instead. In which case, fair enough. Draws happen. What's important to me is that changes are made for the right reasons and with a very specific vision in mind. These mechanics don't need to be changed for the reasons you state: to keep people playing by letting them win matches they ruined and gave away themselves just to make them feel good. Worse. You're just argueing from a purely selfish perspective because it's what YOU want. I'm not, I'm argueing from game balance. For example, giving credit and objectives by which it is possible to not lose. Why? So those on the losing side have something more than mere killwhoring to maximise their exp to do and they keep going after game objectives and give the other team a challenge. You Tubit, want to remove the challenge. You want to take away the value of a victory. You want to turn bad players into "good" players, by altering their statistics in their favour, covering up their poor decisionmaking and equalling them to players that actually make a difference and do so efficiently in a much more limited time. Unlike you, I think it's very important that these people can be pointed out. Not in the least to keep the arrogance of the poorer players in check, but also to see how a good player is really capable of making a difference and to have people have something to aspire to. That's where we differ. Reasons to change and what goals to change. In fact, I would go as far as to say you want to promote losses over draws, I want to promote draws over losses. So no, you don't get me. Because you don't listen to what I'm saying due to your personal want.

1. Don't start a pew-pew-pixel fight. You damaged a team member, doesn't matter if it was in self-defense, you violated the rules. Be the more mature person (and use words to express your severe disappointment in humanity and wail over the senseless existence of recalcitrant teen tyrants). 2. Don't hit friendlies for a while.

I take it that game mode turned out in such a way that the players left the convoy to die alone while they chased kills (enemy convoy and escorts), while the AI were too dumb to properly zig-zag and dodge long range torps, even if DDs were sighted? Sounds like it should be a clan wars thing.

Probably to stop CVs from perma-spotting them.

1 - change to HE ammo 2 - change to AP ammo A - turn left D - turn right. W - speed up S - reduce speed (double) Left click - fire cannons. [self assigned key] - mark targets for allies Did I miss any?

Pick a side and fight your way through with team support...?

What makes you think there are different internet communities when it comes to pub-match games with a low intelligence treshold?

It does. Why are you obsessed with assuming you are an expert on telling other people what is and isn't possible with a battleship when you have no experience with them whatsoever? Nor with CVs, for that matter. Your opinion is biased and unfounded. Grow up and learn to play while listening to people who do have experience.

That's because they're balanced against ground unit AA. Between aircraft different stats should apply, but they probably thought that was too complex.

I'm so full of [edited]. Just look at my horrid stats. Like you I have 36% winrate and only 86 matches... Oh I mean, averaging around 60% and around 2000 battles including CBT...

Then I'm sorry to say you're using that section of the map wrong. There's two things you should do if you spawn north east: first, load AP and aim south, sailing horizontal (either west or east, depends on what the rest of your team does and the enemy, I personally prefer west, since you can turn north and have your cannons on the next fleet), but do not go too fast that you get within range of any but a few BBs from the enemy fleet north west. Aim for any cruisers that get within 14km that try to navigate the islands and take them out. If you spot DDs within 10km, load HE and fire once or twice at most. (by now you've spend about the first 3 minutes of the map, rendering the first minute spotting useless) The second thing you should have done is have your other half of the team (south west) en mass get close to the northern OR eastern islands and go for the side with the islands. If they get close to the northern islands, it takes a long time before the north has an angle on them, while they should have easy shots on the south east. If they move to the eastern islands their job is to get into melee with the south east asap, while staying out of range from any northern units trying to get around the islands. When they round the corner they can barely reach the middle, so it takes at least 7-8 minutes before they can join the fight from the northwest to the south east. Once the south east has been thinned by your combined assault, you let the cruisers handle the DDs and CV handle any BBs there. CV should be able to get close to the islands now that the DDs are gone for cover from direct fire and being visible. If the CV sailed north east, it's isolated and doomed. Hell, I often got mine in between the atols there after clearing the eastern most section. Which should be the priority to the CV: any ships sailing around the east. If you can clear those, you can sail freely from north to south after all. The next thing you do as a BB in the north east is kite the attackers from the north west, from your initial heading, you head north-north-east at first. Drawing the north western enemy away from the battle in the middle, ensuring your south west team and north east team can clean up with a numerical advantage. Just be sure not to get within 15km range of the enemy cruisers north west in the first 6 minutes or so. The tiny bit of fire from enemy BBs you might take is typically neglegible since most of them only fire salvos worth of 1-4K damage. The amount of coordination is just "Shall we attack south-east first? Focus fire on cruisers and DDs please." Honestly, I would ignore the CVs for the first 10 minutes all together. The cruiser spam and constant fires is what you should control and you should clear a path for your CV to get island cover. :/ If you get there, then that enemy CV is isolated and free exp for your DDs anyway.

There are ample islands in the north east to block incoming fire from at least one direction, you can also easily maintain distance by not sailing into the crossfire. Sorry, but that isn't necessary. :/ I never had trouble in that region in the way you describe it. I usualy last between 12 and 20 minutes too. Dieing sooner is only due to a mistake. I really like the map, regardless of starting position. :/ Same as a CV, during CBT I had some of my best matches in there with the enemy fleet just a few km away and sortie after sortie going over the mountain next to me, delivering two to four payloads within the minute.

Newswatch, if you think you get 2-3 seconds to react, why don't you use the minute to half a minute of approaching on your position to make it really hard to get these torps in the right spot? The risk to the CV is having their planes exposed to AAA so long that they run out of aircraft. Unlike everyone else, CVs do not have unlimited ammo. So, focus your AAA on the unit you can't dodge and steer into or away from another dropper, change speed etc. Make sure they cannot easily time and aim all their bombers at once. They are multitasking those bombers and everytime you change something, they have to change the approach route and angle of 1-4 bomber squadrons, causing some to miss, etc. Because when torp bombers come for me, my positioning changes when they are still 8km out. Allowing them to hatch you with two squadrons is your own fault. With three or more you can't avoid all usualy, but more than two hits isn't necessary. Especially not if you arranged some AA units tier 6 and up to use their anti torp panic button within 6km from you.

Anti-torpedo dolphins?

No it's not much fun that your team doesn't, if you don't try to do the tactical thinking for them. Most the time the semi-decent people do listen if what you're suggesting makes sense to them, even if they don't talk. That your team doesn't have that many tactical players is okay. Likely the enemy team has less (your team should have at least 1: you...). Aye. And it helps that they can tell better what's going on on the other side. I've also found that if you stick together you now and then may make a bad choice and if he or she followed you, that choice cost that division member as well. Considering these people have a mind of their own and are used to making their own decisions, it may actually cause them to be less effective if they rely on someone else's strategy and playstyle. So, having them on the other end making their own choices tends to work out better for me as I'm a risk taker. Those friends exist? :p I generally dig from my pool of other game's friends IF I division. >.>

Honestly I find that to be an advantage. Better to have good players on both fronts guiding the lemmings around. ;)

Just hit the side which both your sides have the best view on. Tell the rest and make sure you hold three points if it is domination with 5, hold 2 if it's domination with three. If you're ganged up on, bait people away from the zones to stall for time and get local numerical superiorities elsewhere. Communicate constantly. You have ample of time to adjust your plan to the situation. No, CVs are not spotted that first minute. They spawn in one of two spots and the enemy knows which as soon as you make your aircraft fly. No, they're not spotted the first minute, only after about 12 minutes if you play it proper as the CV and if you play well you can be spotted and it won't matter cause you're behind islands and only the enemy CV could reach you since your team blocks the other routes. As a BB, even if you get spotted in the first minute, does it matter? Since when do BBs rely on the element of surprise? Come on man. Just play heavy support as a BB for your cruisers and control the center and take out as many cruisers and DDs as possible before turning on the enemy BBs. And yes, I take out DDs if they're 7-10km away, which isn't really hard since they tend to use chokepoints, limiting their speed, angles and possible places to be.

Nothing wrong with Hot Spot. It's quite nice for strategic and tactical players. Unfortunately, that excludes 70% of the playerbase who can neither plan, prioritise nor improvise...

Thanks.

Btw Beani, 46K damage at tier V is fine for a CV. It is double the damage you personally deal on the Furutaka and three times the damage you personally deal with an Omaha and should be enough to be capable of being decisive.

Started using the Hosho yesterday. Constantly outnumbered by enemy interceptors, still manage 44K average damage and at max 16 enemy interceptors and bombers taken out (concentrate on deter and bait, not taking out aircraft, that is just nice extras), that is 108 air in 15 battles, so a mere 7-8 on average, not counting the ones I detained for friendly carriers and had shot down by friendly ground units. Remember that your own AA is some of the best at tier IV and having enemy fighters overhead is not a problem, in fact, it is the best thing that can happen as long as you can dodge bombers (position should prevent other fire on you). So combine your AA with other units if possible and keep them in your range with your own fighters. Switch AA target to enemy bombers if they arrive. Yes, only got eight of my own, flying just four at once with the Hosho, but it is enough to deal massive damage if your tactics are sound. Also have AA and an engine and sail my CV behind the islands about 6km from the frontline so I can draw enemy air over friendlies constantly to soften them up and use the engagement of their interceptors to strike with my torp bombers. Was a bit getting used to CV play again, but adapting to the wider spread wasn't too hard. Enemies still pretty dumb, steering the wrong way, getting themselves beached in panic and enemy CVs still follow bait. Tip for Beani: Sacrifice a squadron instead of allowing them to jump from one to the next by flying 'm together when pursued and make their logistics of getting to your other squadron less easy if not impossible. Just bait 'm away from your other squadron, preferably over friendly ground forces. Any fighters they lose is bonus. You may well end the match almost without aircraft left, but with base captures, lots of damage dealt, some kills etc. Even when you're alone against two Langleys, or Langley and Bogue with a fighter config. Already seen both those situations a few times and manage. Shame the other CV always wants to sit far in the back and thus far from me so we can't combine our AA with the rest of the fleet. *waits for random to tell me I know nothing and that this is impossible...*