Figment

Just had a loss in my Fuso where the nearest ally to the base didn't understand that SAILING INTO YOUR OWN BASE WILL STOP THE TIMER. He ran circles around the base, being scared of the DD inside of it. He eventually got torped and we lost by cap, despite it should have been a draw, because there was no way that DD would have sunk his ship on time had he gone in there and with both of us firing at him (I actually almost caught up with him from the far north thinking the south would be save with 6 ships including 4 cruisers fighting 2 Gremmy at 3-4K each. I was wrong...). THIS is why you lose and draw at higher tiers: the people playing in it don't know the rules and concept of how to play, even if you explain it in minute detail to them. :/

Well it's hard to respond to someone who's got his head stuck up somewhere he can't hear arguments too. But it's funny that you choose to interpret everything as insults... Even if you have been far more insulting. I've been stating the obvious truth. Your only argument is emotional, based on personal want and then you get insulted if you're pointed out it's about people wanting to inflate their ego through rigging stats in their favour when they don't really deserve it?

Nice way to actually ignore the entire post. You're on ignore now.

Basically, camp moar, hope for snipe killz?

The reset at CBT to OBT is a complete database wipe. Ships, everything. It usualy upsets a lot of people. Complete resets aren't something you want to do really. Tracking results over time, is.

Doesn't need a reset, just a "recent results" section. Most stat tracking sites do it as well, it's just a database update...

Oh my what have I done!?!?!?!

Would be a start, definitely. But it would still be annoying to have 16 seconds of "total safety from fire and instant extinguishing" followed by 1:30mins or more of fires going rampant and unchecked. Then suddenly running out of fuel. The system is quite unclear, feels random and generally doesn't generate a sense of control, rather than guessing what timing is best. Obviously, best can be to wait if it's clear there's another imminent attack, but in some cases, the time between HE/Flood damage can be just one second after repairs due to a fifth unit making a run on you (and dodging all runs can be a bit hard). So circumstance likely doesn't allow it, certainly not when up against a HE CA. Fair enough really, but it must annoy the enemy too when they get a message a fire started and no fire shows up. Speaking of unclear and random in relation to repairs: the amount of healing you get from a repair seems completely random to someone using it. It's extremely hard to tell if you're going to get 5% health returned as a BB or 25%. There should be more clarity on that as well through an indicator.

Bumping this a bit. Still think the repair functionality is too simplistic, too "magical" vs aggravatingly long and should really get an overhaul.

If the reason is being looked down upon due to results in the "days of old", then another way would be to have results for the past month(s), rather than all time.

Never had economy problems till tier 8. I grind 6 lines, but also usualy get top 3 scores. So it's not hard to imagine those without consistent top scores have a lot harder time grinding credits. :/ Especially losses can become very costly then.

Apparently your interpretation is malfunctioning badly. Try again. That's not a sentence about the quality of players and their opinion. It says: A. that people who get high draw rates should play better to not get them. And yes that includes good players. There's no quality judgment there. B. it implies that less than 20% average draws is not a really high value. Considering losses are at least double or triple that value, as are wins. Which means the system encourages wins and losses as is. Instead, it says that it would be a high systemic blameable failure if the majority of matches would result in draws. Underperforming means that you're not performing per your optimum. What are you looking for? Insults? Players can't underperform you say if they're good? They can't be playing at 70% of their potential game? And you want to talk realism? No, it's not me for not making myself clear. It's you wanting to read things in a way that would allow you to ignore me by pretending I'm insulting etc. Stop trolling and read what I'm writing instead of trying to read into what I'm writing. You're not really well informed if by this time I do subtlety and hide my "true meaning" behind what I'm saying. I'm not British, I don't camouflage what I say. So either you need a class in interpretation of texts, or you're just deliberately trying to twist words to rile me up. What is it? Oh and please do. I've played up to tier 8. It's pretty much the same. As I've said before: CVs were my source of draws, but I also said why: 1. I didn't always play them right. I stayed too far out in the very early beginning (player at fault) 2. You could reset a cap against badly dodging players, otherwise they win. (player last stand defense == fair enough) 3. ENEMY PLAYERS CAME TO HUNT ME / DIDN'T GO FOR CAP IN TIME (enemy players at fault) In all three cases it was either my or the enemy's fault. I actually made a thread about draws back then, but later revised that vision as I got better with CVs and made my draw rate go down. I did not have high draw rates on ANY of the other classes. Why? Because I had pretty high winrates on cruisers and DDs (about 5-9% higher than now, since I used the fog a lot for close range melee torping). Draw rates were really low on them, around 4%. As they are now. BBs had slightly higher draw rates at first, but then I had winrates on BBs below 50% too. After I learned how to play BBs proper, my winrate skyrocketed to over 60% on them and my draw rate and loss rate both fell significantly. All statements I've made about the comparison between CBT and OBT is that there's very little difference, except for HE / AP being changed a little bit (and with NO IMPACT ON DRAW RATES) and that BBs are relatively powerful and have more chance to create a win in comparison to the situation around 0.3.1. So you should only get lower draw rates. Anything I've said about OBT / CBT only supports what I state today. So I'll be interested in seeing you try. EDIT: AND YES. At higher tiers you see MORE DRAWS, because incompetence on your team has a higher impact and so does positioning. And since the players who used to win by high damage ratios didn't learn to position well to cap will not be in good positions to cap, they will be losing out on wins if they continue to play the "Hunt the last DD/CV" game, which is only possible on small maps and even then ill-advised.

Uhm... You can see the flashes. :/ They're small orange and with a bit of grey/black smoke and disappear quickly, but you can see them. Killed many DDs and cruisers in fog by leading using those plumes as guide.

Actually, flashes of gun fire are typically the only things you could see at certain range in reality. Especially at night, flashes of gun fire on the horizon wern't uncommon. So it's not that sci-fi. And that probably put them on your radar (minimap). Your rendering / viewing / target acquisition range isn't 10km though, so it wouldn't put them on your main screen as a visible ship. Difference between map detection and screen.

Nice attempt at twisting my words. I said that if the average is high for the general populace, that's because of there being a lot of bad players. And yes, I also said even those who win a lot and get high draw rates (often because they're good shots and do a lot of damage) can do much better if they position better. But I didn't say that all those who get high draw rates are bad players per se. I said they and/or their team underperform. If you think everyone is a good player though, you're in for a rude wake up call any time soon. Most players stink. Sad, but true.

Xmen, on 24 August 2015 - 01:44 PM, said: Figment how do you know that " that a lot of players do NOT have this high draw rate" since it has been hidden for some mysterious reason ? Maybe because it was asked and more than half of the respondents said they had draw rates under 5%? And I don't really value the opinion of people with high draw rates, cause they have themselves to blame from my experience. Duh, you got high draw rates. Play better. The average draw rate is FINE, even if it's "high". If it was 80% there might be a structural problem, but less than 20%? Sorry. That's ego centrism of bad players speaking. basketball is really boring because it's so easy to score. if you saw fifteen, you saw all of those 180 points made.

If you think they take out destroyers fast, try aiming for cruisers... You can do 9-12K damage quite reliable on a single salvo and end a game with over 15 citadel hits.

Well the general population thinks Kill / Death ratios matter too... So what the general population thinks is not necessarily what is best for the general population... Which is incidentally why most of them play so bad. They have no idea what they're doing. :/ On exp / credits: - You don't get less exp than with a loss, likely, your team did better, so you likely ended up with MORE exp than with a loss. - Sure, less exp than with a win. Try harder next time and don't lose sight of your objectives to... win? - Two sides aren't always entitled to a win, because there's no clear winner. One person's gain would be the other person's loss. - Should you give something to people just because they want it? Have you ever been given the responsibility of the upbringing of a child? What do you get if you give a child everything they WANT? A spoiled brat. What do we have here? WoT people who complain they get more draws than in WoT. Because they want them. "WAAH WAAAH WAAAAAAAH MOMMY GIEF FREE EXP CAUSE I WANT IT." Yay. We want more of those people on the forums... - As said before, rewarding draws a bit better would make people far more appreciable of their gains. On impressive battles and testing one's own skill: - An impressive battle is one where both sides are doing the best they can. - The most memorable and ego-buffing battles is those where against the odds, you turned the tide by your actions: turned a sure loss into a win or at least a draw. If you take this away from people, you actually reduce the impressiveness of battles. If you're guaranteed a win half way the battle, just because of the number count of units and the resulting DPS, then there's little point to continue playing to win or draw. If a draw is unlikely, then the win is less meaningful and you get less satisfaction out of it. If you can't "lose", then how much value is there to a win? Same goes for a draw. If you can't draw because of some random rules, does that mean you're really so much better or worse? - I stopped playing War Thunder, because the losing side in a 20minute tank battle starts camping either the enemy spawn or from spawn as soon as they see they can't win or even if it just looks very hard to make it happen. Teamplay degenerates into camping, stat padding, ego-tripping and immature insults. It generally generated a toxic atmosphere where people complain about killsteals, people not playing properly for objectives, people being lame (spawn) campers, etc. - People will start playing to farm and play "lame" if it just generates more exp: steal kills for that little bit more exp. Stay away from Farm gameplay is always boring and usualy quite destructive to teamplay due to its self-interest nature. - If your skill is not going to lead to a win or at least a draw, whatever you did while fighting a losing fight will be meaningless anyway, because a company wants the bad players to win anyway by default so they can be more happy. It's an incredible demotivating factor to realise this and it creates a lot of bad blood. I don't see the above as a positive development. And why? Because some people are too arrogant to admit they made a booboo and messed up a win. Or are too arrogant to accept that they were unable to beat an opponent. Or are too arrogant to accept that others are more efficient than they are in playing the game. If "wanting to win to boast" is an argument to change the gameplay, then let's just remove PVP from the game and let's all play Coop. Nice eh? 80-100% win chance for everyone! Yaaaaay so much fun if there's no chance of defeat or being rivalled...

In this context, all three are the same thing really. But yes, could be an even better term, since you can view / render terrain much further away anyway and it could confuse. But we're deep into semantics now. At least, we're clear on what's meant now.

Had up to 92% winrate with my Omaha , had a couple draws and losses (with first place, of course) lately due to people leaving the cap zone, but alas. I use the torpedoes a lot for ambushes on BBs, in which case the 6 torps a side and more guns are far more important than the added AA. Only once been sank by a torp bomber anyway. And that's still only because they sent 6 squadrons after me.

Ah yeah, I just call it view range, but render range is probably a clearer term.

Supa, maybe your winrate with the New York (25%) is making you fume about BBs instead of looking at your own actions, but viceadmiral is right. Both of you have less than stellar performance on your ships and much worse results than other players get with the same units. Both of you complain about the system, while neither of you is really looking at what you're doing wrong. Learn to Play is maybe aggravating when you think you're good, but then that is probably the problem. You're objectively verifiable as "not so great players". Now, you and many like you who don't handle critique well take this as an insult because you're in denial. People who aren't in denial would say "okay, so how would I get better?" You don't. You ask everything to change because you think "it is wrong", without even having checked what is wrong. If everyone - nobody excluded would underperform, you would have a case. But other people have much better consistent results. And by much I mean BY A LANDSLIDE. And not just one, A LOT of people have that. At that point you should first analyse yourself thoroughly and without bias that you're good. Always assume you could have done something better, each match, even if you win. If you don't reflect, you don't improve and all you can do is get frustrated and whine, where people who do reflect and learn will see you as coming over as arrogant and childish.

As we are correcting one another, you got that wrong. You are talking about your ship being detected when you speak about detection range. On radar (mini map) every ship detected by your side will be visible. Yes. Viewing distance of a ship is the light coloured triangular circle section on your minimap: when someone is spotted, they only show up as visible to you when they are within this physical viewing range. Otherwise they disappear from view. They might however be detected on radar and become visible to ships that have sufficient viewrange. However, normally, ships have so much view range they have MORE viewrange than detection range (!). This is NOT the case for the Albany, which is one of the few exceptions where this is a common occurance due to its range being extremely limited for some reason. I don't know why they did that btw. But nevertheless it doesn't actually need it in my experience anyway. It would be nice (and fair) if it could see at least as far as other units on its tier. But it was deliberately designed this way for some reason. You would have to ask the devs why.

And in the end it all comes down to someone being frustrated with himself and his team but blaming the system. I find the arrogance annoying, because currently the system also points out that some players are efficient with their time, while others draw a lot. If you just go into overtime to force a win because the fragile ego of some player cannot handle the concept of a draw "but mommy, I wanted to win!", then I don't feel like they should get it and pretend they are just as good as better players and teams. People who make tactical mistakes and don't consider the time constraint enough in their planning or play for kill deaths simply aren't good players, they should not have the same stats as those that do keep an eye on the time and do prioritise winning over kills / pay attention. The arrogance to claim equality is baffling. The arrogance to state that one would quit if they are not artificially allowed to have a better chance at defeating a foe (and would probably have others lose a lot more) because a draw would somehow make people stop playing, while more losses would not... Seriously! How many people have different stats here and how many people actually quit over their stats being rubbish? The argument of fun is far too subjective, not to mention unverifiable to even bother bringing up, since it an easily be countered with the concepts of fun of other people, not to mention the fun of the people who perform well constantly. I personally hate it when my team costs us a draw or win, despite my best efforts, but I accept it since the other team performed well enough to compensate my efforts. But if even the draws I currently manage to arrange can be stolen simply by making me fight a losing battle even longer that would bother me more. But I would personally still fight. And accept it. However, people who don't like to fight losing battles will consider simply leaving as soon as they predict they are likely to lose. You want to encourage that behaviour? Great... Even more unnecessary losses... I much rather have a draw be rewarded a little bit better - increasing the effort the losing side puts in and thus improving the challenge - and have the cap timer be far more obvious and see where this goes, then to reward cowardice, greed and encourage routing from matches by the weak willed.

Ah, the Albany. The unit in question was well out your viewing range, which is normal given the low viewing range it has. However, the range you provided isn't correct. It must have been from over 8.2km, which is as far as you can see. Any unit outside of that range will be invisible to you. But since you only have 6.3km range (without captain skill upgrades), all you need is the information on the minimap. Hitpoints would be nice to know, sure. But you need to hug the islands anyway and should never take an Albany to open waters. Anyway, it is nice that you can see where the threat is located by incoming fire, that allows you to avoid its fire, which is really all you would and could do anyway. Closing in in that situation would be suicide. Do remember that you normally can't see beyond the curvature of the earth (an actual horizon view is ignored in this game), so allowing you to see the flashes is more than you should have already.