Figment

Hahahahaahahahaha.... Yeah. No. I can one-salvo a Cleveland with a two tier lower BB...

I don't quite get why WG has such a big problem with making the max tier difference in a division to be 1 or 2. :/ If it was 2 vs 2 or 3 vs 3 battles, fair enough. But these divisions influence the fun of other players.

Best way to deal with a cruiser with AA abilities as a CV is to fly into about 6km, see if your units get scared, fall back, wait about 30s, see if you can force a strong turn, then engage (if possible in a crosshatch) when the AA fire returned to normal.

They should just remove the skill because nobody in their right mind would ever use it when they can have something more useful... As in... basically anything else. Hell, a cruiser probably has more benefits from fighter aircraft skills...

Uhm what? Extra AA range on Pensacola was glorious. Downed up to 39 in CBT. AA surely isn't that nerfed on Pensacola since?

Or the occasional 20K damage. >.>

No that's just simplistic.

Draws are boring? Tell that to this goalie who made the 2-2 in the substitute time (substitute time being extra time due to time not used, rather than time to decide the winner at an even score). Draws can be VERY rewarding and feel like a win to the side that was losing. Players should always have something to play for. Even at bad odds. Or they give up and become apathic. If you're any good and think you're entitled to a win... Don't let the damn goalie score.

Regarding submarines, COULD be interesting to some: The Silver Fleet (1943) Havn't seen more than a trailer, but it's a (very) British (stiff upper lip accent) movie about a dutch submarine builder in nazi-occupied Netherlands who has a hobby of sabotaging U-boats, while people think he's working for the Germans.

It doesn't do that much if you don't make the turns too big between points. That just has to do with it giving full rudder and not reducing rudder ahead of the turn being completed too late.

That's not autopilot. That's automatic collission prevention.

I find automatic is only useful for CVs.

Close range. Secondary upgrades. Go and fall in love with it.

Could be a balancing strategy based on the number of them, to not have both the high tier firepower, hitpoints and secondaries against lower tier units?

If people choose to camp or not move in time, this is reflected in their stats. How is WG going to change that self-preservation behaviour by giving these people more time to do just that?

You point at a collective of individual stats, claiming these stats CANNOT be down to a playerbase not being capable of understanding the game through and through. Yet you don't at all look at how these collective stats came to have these results and if these stats can be clarified by other means than "the system sucks" and "the system surely didn't intend this many draws, cause I personally don't want that many draws". You point at individual stats of a section of the playerbase with roughly the same stats, then declare your personal insight as the standard to go for. I observe the opposite, players being at fault for a loss, win or draw, EVERY SINGLE MATCH. :/ The amount of mistakes made and lacking insight is just staggering. Just took out a BB with my Nicholas. It saw me coming from 7km away. It sails with guns pointing towards the rockface through a bunch of tight narrows, THEN BLAMES TORPEDOES (the system) FOR BEING OP when he runs into all 12 of my torps and has no room to maneouvre or dodge. The argument we're having here is about something similar, though not as insultingly blatant and certainly not to diminish others. It's more about whether someone has a better grasp of the pacing of the game, where not only have you learned to master your ship itself in combat, but also learned to be efficient with it within the set limits of the game rules. With the amount of bad players, the amount of lacking situational awareness, the amount of lacking planning, the amount of not thinking ahead, the amount of ignoring the timer all together, the amount of draws should not really that surprising. Before you adjust the timer and potentially deny me my ships for five minutes longer (which in the end results in a lot more grind) for no reason other than to satisfy someone's ego somewhere, I'd suggest trying to raise that awareness level and make people understand that capturing a base is not a lame way to win. Because there are a lot of bad players who don't even WANT to try to win by capture. And I'm certainly not intending on pleasuring them. Let's first just try making the timer more obvious and put more pressure on the end battle and try to make people aware that they are running out of time (for example with faster paced music). I can guarantee you the amount of draws will diminish as a result directly.

Never sneak up on a ship sailing away from you if you intend to use torps. It just doesn't work.

These people are often the people that play them at long range. The Nagato infuriated me when I tried long range, 314 damage, 314 damage AH! 942 damage... Then I installed melee modules, took my ship to 6-7km and avast ye mateys, I killed three cruisers within the span of 3 minutes on a regular basis with AP citadel hits and secondaries setting them ablaze. The izumo has secondaries with 7.0km range. With range extension, that's already 8.4km. Add captain skills, that's 9.8km! Play it melee and install these mods instead of accuracy mods for the main guns. At the lower rangs, that increased accuracy is somewhat worthless anyway. If you compare it to its US counterpart the Iowa, it has fewer secondaries with far less range and actually worse dispersion. The only benefit it has is a bit more range and a little bit more speed, turn rate seems to be the same. Not sure about armour, but then that can be worked around with proper shell choice anyway. The turret rotation is even 5 seconds worse for the Iowa. So I don't really see how the Izumo would be bad or worse, unless it's played in the wrong way, as a sniper rather than a brawler. Most BB users seem to use their ships as snipers anyway. And yeah, agree with Cogency, Kongo, Fuso and Nagato are extremely good fun in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

One player's record showing something can be done disproves claims of "impossibility". Not sure when you last had a debating class, but being proven wrong can't be corrected by ignoring evidence. You adjust your position if you're wrong, rather than try to belittle the person that showed you wrong or try to somehow have the argument invalidated due to claiming "dead horse" and bullying someone in not using a valid argument ("we've seen it, don't post it again"). But you do realise I hope that you're using the exact same line of argumentation: you point at individual players having certain statistics (BUT DISREGARD ENTIRELY THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF HOW THEY GOT THEM), group them together and claim "it can't be they are bad players, the system must be wrong". Sorry, but that's really cheap, and an argument ad populum as well. Just be critical of the arguments in your post below and realise you're the pot calling the kettle black. allufewig, on 19 August 2015 - 09:59 AM, said: I dont have that values at hand but if we get like 20-30% draws for T10 standard on f.e. Ocean, something is off. And it likely is that way. If they show out to be only 10% I will gladly shut my mouth. Blaming bad gamedesign solely on the playerbase is a very cheap move. If you have no Problem with draw-rates, fine. Other Players do have problems. At the same time theres no harm to anyone by adding a +5 mins or whatever for hightiers. I'm not sure where you get it from that any specific percentage of draws is "off" / "out of whack". The percentage is simply a result and reflection of how players play under the given circumstance. If players play poorly, and everyone on these forums including in this thread keep whining that they play poorly (and yes, both sides whine they play poorly, just look at 90% of Mmmbeer's complaints for instance), then that might actually be an indicator of why results aren't as optimal as you might want them to be. Ignoring that fact is also a very cheap move. The +5 minutes does harm. Who? You say "it doesn't harm anyone", so I only need to come up with one example of a group that is harmed. How about the people that play well, but have been facing a numerical disadvantage for a long time already. You deny them a chance to make enough of a difference to prevent a loss. Now they are being treated as losers, instead of people who made enough of a difference to turn a loss into a draw. Clearly, you value your own group higher, but based on what other than self-interest may I ask?

The difference in speed isn't there though. BBs have only become more maneuvrable since CBT. I know the maps and ship speeds. The minor changes you talk about have only increased the capacity of individual players to make an impact. :/ I don't think you can outright say I "can't talk about it", because I've been there and the changes have mostly been about some minor changes to AP and HE, which in practice doesn't change the outcome of a match.

Unless you got 4-8 torps to spend.

As said... been there in CBT. Those camping BBs are also on the other team. Exploit it.

Just my perspective. :/ I don't think I am but hey. It's easy to say when you're winning I guess? :/ I can't believe my results are pure chance or pure match maker handing me good teams constantly over an equal amount of matches as others have had (over 400 now and 1300 in CBT). Jokes to break the ice / set a mentality can be as simple as: "Good day sirs, the foxes are loose. Tally-ho gentlemen." "Gents, the rebel peasents in front of us are after our stock of pies. We shall make a stand and shall revel in the glory of our pies afterwards." (someone responds with "Indeed!". Job done.) "Would the person responsible for littering shells please be so kind to clean up after yourself?" (Enemy team says "No", one of your team responds in outrage, team spirit created.). It'll get a convo started. Break the ice. Right now I am, since I burned out a bit on CBT (as said, 1300+ matches grinding 7 trees up to tier 8) and have been slow to get matches in as it's just more of the same (even if I perform much better now due to knowing what to do and what not to do), but tier is irrelevant IMO. Plese remember that lower tiers make it more likely for the enemy team to counter you as much as it allows you to counter them more easily. So yes, you can theoretically impact more, but so can everyone on the other team, so that cancels out (in theory anyway). I'd argue that higher tiers in fact reward good positioning and course plotting more. And yes, they punish camping more because the campers at high tiers don't have the reach you need. But as I pointed out, I played tier 8 against tier 10 in CBT. And had high winrates and low loss rates then too. Played US and IJN cruisers, US CVs, IJN BBs and DDs up to tier 8. Only CVs had high draw rates for me. Take the Arctic map. During CBT there were a lot of complaints about quick caps in encounter matches by DDs. But I've been in many of those matches and BBs, cruisers and CVs in question didn't get anywhere near the encounter capture zones. Why? "I'm not going to risk my ship". Well okay, fair enough, but then don't complain you lose. After all, it is your choice not to respond to a provocation or threat. And if they forced your hand, why would that be considered a bad thing? I would compliment the enemy DDs for forcing the hand and yell at our own cruisers and DDs for being cowards. :/ If they see me go in and (after three-four minutes of concentrated enemy fire) sink, while they stayed back all along, they see this as confirmation of them being right, rather than realising that even with all enemies trained on me, I still manage to stall 3-4 minutes (kill a DD or two) and then sink because of our team chosing not to spread the attention of the enemy and push them back together. Still. A lot of those "would have been decided in the first minute" battles, ended up in long drawn out battles just because I did dare to sacrifice myself. Of course, with one of our ships gone early on (me), it's harder to win if we didn't compensate for that early loss by killing enemies (luckily, killing DDs often helps more than killing BBs in domination matches due to aforementioned cowardice ). I also noticed I was one of the only BBs that ventured into C on arctic (kill one-four enemies) with the goal of capping the zone OR stopping it from being captured by others by simply being in it. Some people took BBs foolishly into A, most of the time they ignore B till a DD takes it. I usualy took B or C first depending on starting position and pushed enemies away from it. Then moved on to C or B to cap that, whereas most BBs on arctic stay about half a zone to a zone distance from these capture zones as they argued "BBs can't take zones for it is too dangerous". Really? What the hell did I just do then? People like that obviously frustrate me, but for every match you lose that way, you win a couple because those people are on the other team too (in larger numbers usualy since there's usualy an equal amount of BBs on each side and I'm not one of the type that hangs back where they usualy are). With US cruisers, Myoko and Mogami, it's pretty easy to dominate with kiting and long distance spam and simply dealing enough damage and/or capping enough zones. And IJNs have this nasty advantage of 8-10km torps in melee and ambush combat, which is excellent for zone control and area denial if the enemy team doesn't know when to expect, how to bait and dodge torp runs. Thing is, regardless of unit type, you should be able to (help) dominate half of the zones in domination matches. That's the extend of your influence. If you do your job of making an effort to control or dominate half of the zones or map, at the least make an effort for it, the chances increase that your side wins. Only THEN comes the teamplay aspect in play: how well does your team support or do that as well vs what the other team does? :/ And if you get some people to coordinate with you, chances are the units on your flank will be dominating your side of the map. If it's enough then of course depends on what happens elsewhere. But if you won your flank, then the enemy on the other flank faces at least more units than your other flank faced as you sail over to support them. If they do equally well or worse or your team isn't fast enough. So be it. I just feel a lot of people don't perform as consistent as they think or don't quite know YET the subtleties of plotting courses and timing of course changes with future objectives in mind. I'm confident they will, as I started out the same in early CBT. A draw isn't as nice as a win, but it's definitely not as demotivating than a loss in which you performed "like a god" (to use your words).

2-3 people coordinating can be enough to win a flank. They see you perform, they become inclined to listen. Plus, win a flank, chances increase you win other parts of the battle. Not every match can be won, but it happens more often than some people like to admit. Why so selective of negativity when you should concentrate on the people being positive? It's like the news: virtually complete focus on negative news, because good things (like people performing normally) are taken for granted or not noticed.

1. It's 11 other players. 2. Individual stats of other players prove you can. 90% of my time I play alone. Stop scapegoating divisions. 3. Completely ignore campers and work with the people that want to coordinate. Don't waste energy and concentration on people who aren't worth it. Focus more on the CV, DD and cruiser users who will dominate that match due to the BB players taking themselves out of it with camping. 4. Maybe try a different manner of encouragement. I start with a joke and maybe a fun convo with the enemy to create an us vs them mentality. Get people talking, THEN suggest a strategy or at least what I'll be doing and perhaps why. Or simply encourage someone else who made a suggestion by offering support. Talking down on others and backseatdriving won't help and just create banter if they're not in the mood. You call bullcrap, but clearly I'm experiencing this game differently from you. As individual (that list from a few pages back is all solo play with top 3 score throughout). Because they're not a big problem as is. I'm not against changes, I've proposed plenty. What I'm against is these people here pretending they can't do better and have THAT be the reason for change. I can't stand self-centered whining for more candy for one self when people can simply work to get it. That the system can be more efficient and streamlined is definitely true. But the self-entitlement and self-pity? That I take issue with.