Figment

I'd much rather they teach players how to play before these players think they're really good and make claims to what they should have won based on power difference at the end of the match... Too many people play this game as a pure death match. The zones provide a much more tactical element that's strongly underestimate by most players, who think they have all the time in the world to sail to these zones. They don't. So they don't plan for it and draw or lose as a result. My 60% winrate as is has a reason.

Probably to do with them trying to promote short range fleet support from CVs.

Two CVs out of bomber aircraft sailing in circles for days.

And the captaining more aware. Well... In theory.

Some entitlement there animistic. If you have seven ships left, you should have been in a position to cap with at least three or four of them. Let me guess, they all took the long routes? Not the game's fault then. Manage your team better. If they won't listen? Still your team's fault: that CV could never reset you all. Nor could an enemy team have at that numerical advantage if you just went for the cap on time by recognising the CV being too far away on time. Used to draw those matches in cbt, but I learned from that and guide my team to cap from 5 minutes to go by reminding them of the time. Five minutes is plenty of time for a ship that goes 20km/h to move 4 grids away. How can you even TRY to blame the damn game when MORE than half the team is still alive and NONE of them are in a position to capture or withing reach of the cap base with 5 mins to go? YOUR TEAM made mistakes, otherwise you couldn't have lost that. I'm really sorry, but that IS a learn to play issue, if not for you then for your team. But if you personally draw often, then you're not helping to coach your team enough. :/ It makes me sad to see some players who can clearly play blame the system for something they can combat themselves by getting their team's act together. It's also interesting that a lot of players who do not get these large draw rates state it's something they can control draws and turn them to wins. Why is it that there's such a perspective difference? Is it simply because some actively try to avoid a draw without relying on power alone? My damage and K/D rate might be lower than some with BBs, but all of my BBs perform in winrate. Possibly because I'm NOT focused on kills and damage, but on regional control: zone/base ownership and area denial is something I prioritise over damaging enemy units, which is second and priorities are those units that might cause a threat to our side or a blockade for our DDs, followed by units with high rates of fire and easy citadels. My gut feeling says a lot of players play differently, given I observe the enemy team who just chase low priority targets all around the map and then are too far away from cap zones. Which especially in domination can mean a 500 point or more score difference.

Do note that short range fire from secondaries is mostly HE shells fired at random angles, most of which bounce off the sides.

Split it up in classes, or the hitrate becomes meaninglessly polluted by the type of class you play most. My average total says 31%. But if you look per class, there's something else going on. BBs: MB: (25%x38 + 25%x33 + 23%x27 + 30%x18 + 27%x16 +23% x12) / 144 matches = 25.3% Cruisers: MB: (34%x32 + 39%x20 + 38%x18 + 40%x14 + 40%x13 + 51%x10 + 42%x8 + 29%x5 + 42%x5 + 34%x3) / 128 matches = 34.6% TP: (5%x32 + 6%x20 + 12%x18 + 6%x13) / 87 matches = 6.9% DDs: MB: (33%x25 + 44%x23 + 45%x22 + 46%x18 + 50%x16 + 47%x12 + 41%x8 + 39%x5) / 129 matches = 42.96% TP: (8%x25 + 11%x23 + 13%x22 + 7%x18 + 11%x16 + 6%x12 + 14%x8 + 12%x5) / 129 matches = 9.96% As you can see, I play all classes approximately evenly. There's a nice gap of about 8-10% difference per class and a 3% gap with TP hitrate. Provided this is comparable to other players due to this being down to the units, then: If someone plays mostly DDs, their torp and main battery hit rates will probably be higher. If someone plays mostly CAs, that person's MB would look a bit above average with respect to someone who plays multiple classes, but their TP rate might look lower. If someone plays BBs mostly, their accuracy looks like crap in comparison to someone playing just DDs and CAs. It'd be more meaningful if a player's stats would be broken up by class, otherwise, it's just a polluted average that doesn't mean much at all. :/

Don't move in a straight line. Autopilot doesn't look out for torpedoes. Lesson learned. Moving on.

Simply returning the favour. You loved to make some authority undermining comments and be dismissive about other people's results. Apparently you take it personal (too) when the favour is returned. And yes. You were making ad hominems and insinuations about others on a frequent basis, usualy followed by you disregarding whatever they said. You think that's polite? Consider that a lot of players do NOT have this high draw rate. Consider that these people have relatively high winrates. Changes to game mechanics don't necessarily improve things. A lot of games have been ruined by changing the rules. A change can be either positive, negative, or have little to no effect. You can't per definition argue that (your) changes are going to improve things "globally". It may lead to "falsifying" performance with respect to other players. For one, some people have suggested draws could be "solved" by extending match length. Extra time being a default might give more power or incentive for people to camp. As long as (bad) players aren't forced to make a move, they won't. Even if you give them more time, they still won't make that move to go to the capzone. Why? Because they simply don't think about it till it is too late. A cap being stalled as long as someone is in the cap might also lead to various forms of different results, might even advantage some units over others. Some units can only fire once every x period of time. Extending the time may lead to a CV that's in hiding getting several extra attempts to kill enemies. Same goes for DDs who might reload. This would disadvantage slow BBs who might have gotten away with a draw now, but would riska a loss if the opposition is granted more time. That slow BB might have done everything it could to get it back to a draw. And now he gets no reward for it. If a time stop is added in the wrong way, it could also be abused by people to extend the time limit such that others can chase down a ship that would otherwise have just been able to focus on defense of the capzone, but now has to focus on self-defense. For instance by going in, out, in, out. If your chance to force a draw instead of a loss decreases (and there are no merits to it), then people may start playing more for personal greed, personal safety. People would start not bothering to even try taking on a superior force "because they lost anyway". That in turn may lead to even more annoyance with bad performing and greedy teammembers, resulting in a more toxic and less cooperative environment. In contrast, rewarding a draw at 1.2x exp might actually result in both sides doing their best to not let the other win. Which is what they should be doing in light of sportiveness. If you just punish draws and losses, you're going to create a lot of bad play and bad blood as well. You've only thought of rewarding the winner, even if they don't deserve to win and you've called other people who disagree with this names. Yes, that's narrowminded and yes, that's forcing your version down other people's throats. That's not an ad hominem, that's simply your attitude. I'm trying to make you see that, but you're not open to that critique. And no, critique isn't always an ad hominem. Tubit101, on 17 August 2015 - 10:52 PM, said: You are right about fun being in the eye of the beholder. Fun is subjective. However, I will argue that draws are largely not being held in high regard as "fun" when it comes to any competition. It seems I'm not alone in my view, since there's frequently being made threads about people being annoyed with the high amount of draws, I would argue that people who lose more than others will also value winrates less as a statistic of relevance. Just because people are inclined to believe and be interested in something that's in their personal interest doesn't make it an improvement if you listen to them or give them what they want just because they'd want it. Not being alone is not hard on a forum with thousands of people. But not being alone is different from having the majority and even having the majority opinion doesn't make you right. A draw is not a negative thing. It can be unsatisfying to one party or both, but it can also be satisfying to one or both parties involved. In the end, if they've had the opportunity and didn't take it then they didn't deserve the win. I personally don't think there's benefit to rewarding greed and arrogance. Especially not if it penalizes the good performing player on the underdog side. The underdog should always have something to keep going for: a win or no loss condition. Otherwise people tend to stop playing or alter their objectives to simply farming points when they seem to be losing. The latter doesn't improve the challenge of the game. Furthermore, when wins are all but guaranteed, you take away the tension. And tension is required for fun. Otherwise it's empty wins and you reduce the fun of a win. Take War Thunder's tanking game's objectives. Many if not most of the wins come directly from camping the opponent's spawn region, or people simply giving up because the objectives became too hard to accomplish once you were even down a bit on the point ticker. I stopped playing WT:Tanks because of there not being a way to turn a defeat around (and there being little room to force a draw), or have a meaningful win. If wins are virtually guaranteed, it just becomes boring to win. Besides, I much rather draw than lose. Yes, that's ego speaking, but also my acceptance of own responsibility - especially when I see how it's the teams that mess up clear wins for themselves. On top of that, you'd be losing a lot of time on "mop up" periods, in which your team chances ending up with a draw in the end because they still didn't see the timer or found it an "unmanly way to win". Teen spirit... Tubit101, on 17 August 2015 - 10:52 PM, said: even though the tendency of many users of this forum is to doggedly defend any current state of the game, with dismissive trolling and snide remarks. Speaking of ad hominems, insinuations. etc. Yeah, you NEVER do that. Let's first see what tutorials and UI changes like the count down timer being more obvious accomplish, before we start messing with draws. Personally, I think that timer turns yellow far too late, should turn red (even blink) for emphasis and contrast and is in general far too small in the first place to be noticed by players in tunnelvision-gunner/greed mode. It should also be made more clear how long you need to capture the base. Providing extra incentives to start capping in time should reduce the risk of draws far more than changing the rules for people who aren't trying to win by cap in the first place. But again, it's funny you completely ignore what suggestions I've made with regards to potential changes one could make to the system. But in the end, just because I state that even under current conditions, it's primarily players themselves who are responsible for draws, rather than their equipment or WG, you get angry with me. I don't know why this is, but I've not seen you ever making a point how players can't control win vs draw.

A slower BB is forced to make decisions a bit sooner. That's about the difference. Range and amounts of guns plays a much bigger role for BBs to determine whether it will be a draw than speed is.

3.5% and dropping as I get better. Even if my loss rate is dropping faster. So no, don't really see a major problem. Used to have a 7-9% draw rate while I used CV's in CBT btw. Something which is in part due to distance involved.

No, it's not pointless bickering, you just don't want to hear what I'm saying because it isn't in your interest and you're too stubborn to listen. You're bringing up a pointless quality of a ship because you completely fail to put that quality into a context. In fact, when a context is brought up, you try to dismiss or ignore it and state that only the quality in itself is relevant and is always to be judged under YOUR conditions. That's a massive flaw in your argument you try to bully yourself out of right now with ad hominems and avoidance. Basically you're comparing speed as if it's a drag race between a cruiser, DD and Battleship and you look at all three ships with the same goggles, without considering they should each be played completely differently, something which most players simply can't do all that well, which is again a fact you're trying to have ignored. Even outright dismiss. Yet that is one of the major flaws in your entire reasoning, the BB isn't where the cruiser or DD would be. At least it shouldn't be if it's captained right. If it is, it has no problem reaching the locations you deem impossible to reach. Simply because you treat a BB with cruiser-captain goggles. :/ You're not convincing at all yourself. Because you're being rather narrowminded in your vision (tutorials would help WAY more than simply altering conditions and in a much more benevolent way because it would increase the quality of gameplay and thus the quality of fun for everyone). Plus you don't even seem to recall or know what I've stated about victory conditions in relation to draws in the past many times over. Certainly in relation to topics I've actually started on the subject myself since early CBT (mainly from the point of view of CV's at the time, since the rest I had no issue with really. And that also turned out to largely be about positioning, teamwork and skill, btw). You just see me as the enemy in debate which you need to squash. You're not critical of yourself and you're not making the analysis you should be making. What I'm saying is that your perspective and reasoning to lower the amount of draws is rather one-sided, uninformed and seeks to scapegoat the system for ovebr 50-70% of the draws, which currently the player can easily be held responsible for. ALL players, regardless of unit type, can avoid draws and keep it under 4% on average. That MOST players are incompetent in and on itself is not reason enough to change the rules. Only very specific draws are a result of the system. I would say about 1%. A small amount of draws comes from players on both teams seeking a draw, but the fast majority of draws comes from: - players on both sides capturing each other's base at the exact same time - FAIR DRAW - players on both sides not being in a position to even reach the enemy base in time, nor in a position to damage the kill the enemy in time - FAIR DRAW - players being too slow in fulfilling their objectives due to being too careful (rather than actual speed) - FAULT OF PLAYERS - players being too greedy to play for different objectives than destroy all enemies - FAULT OF "WINNING" PLAYERS - players being too incompetent or not in a position to avoid being reset - FAULT OF "WINNING" PLAYERS / CREDIT TO PLAYERS ON "LOSING SIDE" - players actively preventing a capture (which actually is to be rewarded to: preventing a loss should NOT be punished! Which is what you do seek with your changes.) - FAULT OF "WINNING" PLAYERS / CREDIT TO PLAYERS ON "LOSING SIDE" - players being too late in a capture zone to complete the capture - FAULT OF "WINNING" PLAYERS / CREDIT TO PLAYERS ON "LOSING SIDE" I don't see the system be at fault, you had 20 minutes to do whatever and you failed to accomplish it. That you COULD HAVE accomplished it with more time is not per definition unfair. If a football match wouldn't end till a golden goal, you'd also have less draws. But draws often also reflect two sides playing equally well, or one side playing their underdog position such that they don't lose and win a draw. That's entirely fair. You can only fight back against a numerical superior team for "so long", so you should ask yourself if for instance time shouldn't always be on the side of the team that already has the advantage of numbers. Fun is in the eye of the beholder. You're making some terrible assumptions, make some poor claims, among which the monopoly to claim what is "fun". As you should have realised by now, you're not in a position to define "fun" for everyone. Maybe if you respected other people's positions on the matter a bit more and realise you're trying to ram YOUR ideas down other people's throats - who btw are virtually all good players and as such have low draw rates and high win rates - unlike someone else in this discussion - don't feel taken very serious by you. You should respect experience and skill a bit more, IMO. You claim to speak on behalf of players "who would leave/have less fun without wins". So you're basically argueing the ego of players should be artificially improved. At the cost of who? Those who lose more where they now could create a draw? Look, Tubit, you're not even clear on when you think a draw is actually fair. How can you possibly start making suggestions about changing rules if you're yet to have a clear vision on what should be a draw and what shouldn't be? I'm also not impressed by your lacking insight in how much a player can control the outcome of a battle. I can't say for sure why you don't seem to value that, whether that's your observation from the perspective of someone who can't do that himself enough. But my observations lead me to believe a single player and the teamwork that player enhances can make all the difference. Again, apparently I need to restate this because you keep ignoring it, do I think this game is perfect as is, NO. But the reasons you bring up, the solutions you (don't) bring up and the solutions you dismiss lead me to believe you're not the right man to listen to with regards to making changes. allufewig, on 16 August 2015 - 08:24 PM, said: Being slow isnt an disadvantage in itself, it is only a a hindrance when the captain is bad. Mhhm. Yeah. And WG uses speed as a balancing parameter. God theyre dumb. Torpedoes of 5.5km/h are a "disadvantage" with respect to 7-10km too. In theory. In practice it turns out a ship is more than the range of its tordedoes. Same goes for speed. And yes, it's the captain that needs to know how to use the COMBINATION of ship parameters to optimise his performance. It's also knowing what a ship CAN NOT do and thus taking your ship to the end of the world when you know you'll likely eventually need to come back simply is a bad idea for some ships. Especially since there's no good reason you would take it there in the first place. And yes, the player's choice to do so.

What I'm saying is that being slow is a disadvantage that can be worked around by good captaining. I'm not saying they're dumb. I'm saying people who don't realise this and take appropriate actions are dumb. Or well, to be more accurate, not (yet) competent enough to have gained that insight over time: if you don't stray too far from your objective, you can NEVER argue you're too slow to reach that objective. If you do, you're basically argueing you should be able to stray from your objective without any form of downside to that. Interesting how perspectives can differ, not? The problem is that some people here are trying to suggest that you always NEED speed to reach a destination, thus always at a disadvantage. As a BB you have the advantage of having more range (often enough to cover half the map even) so you basically don't need to go as far as other units and can leave earlier as well. The timing of leaving and heading to a new destination is an actual ADVANTAGE of the BB. One that most BB captains completely ignore because they're only busy with their current prey, rather than their future prey/objective. As such, you can argue all you want that a slower ship is at a disadvantage, but that is only true when you want to argue that ships should only start sailing at the same point in time. As long as you ignore the timing of travel, you've got no realistic argument when you're talking about disadvantages. In fact, you're only confirming what I already stated before: most BB captains have no sense of timing when it comes to moving to a different part of the map.

Slow ships are at a disadvantage when they need to move fast because they're out of position due to being captained badly...

Yours is 40% on the Myogi and all your others save your fewest played Kawachi have a difficult time getting over 50%. Just saying you're not one to talk about my worst performing battleship, when it's also your worst performing battleship, yet almost as good as your best AND most played battleship... But please. If you want to compare stats and see who has the most authority. Be my guest. Let's hear your expertise.

No, they are shooting down your reasoning to why it is the system's fault, a reasoning which is flawed, as it can be demonstrated that players can minimise this rate, even half it or more with relative ease. There's certainly room for improved systematic changes. However, you're completely removing the responsibility of the players to make draws not happen. In football, draws happen a lot and they can be very entertaining. What I hear from you as motivation is personal emotional argumentations, like frustration with lost exp. That's not a good argument, that's simply personal greed. There are other solutions to this draw (and loss frequency) issue FOR SOME PLAYERS. You try to present it as a problem to all players, when it's mostly the people without extremely good insight that seems to suffer from this. You even claim to speak on behalf of the majority of people, which is speculation and even if you were, which is doubtful, an argument ad populum where the populum can be held responsible in the first place. Among other solutions, are three more important ones: 1. Learning players to play better through tutorials. Not having them get into battleships before they understand how to sail them in the first place. 2. Allowing players to play better through map (awareness/alert) communication tools 3. Allowing players to play better through voice macro communication tools.

Tubit101, on 14 August 2015 - 05:54 PM, said: Here's what I said... "I guess you mostly play in divisions with other ships to back you up then. Not everyone have that luxury. In fact, the large majority doesn't."... Let's repeat part of that again, for clarity: "I guess". Does that look like an accusation to you? Do you think it's wrong to make the assumption that most people who have a high win ratio are usually the ones who are divisioned? If not, then you have nothing to complain about here. What it is, is you trying to accuse me of something in your mind in order to dismiss what I said. I dispute it. And got the results to back me up. You shouldn't allow people to get near your cap and herd them towards theirs. If you don't position yourself well throughout the match, you're going to be in the wrong place to stop them reaching your cap, you're going to be too far from the enemy battle area. And yes, this is ENTIRELY the fault of people not responding to enemy fleet movements in time. Now Tubit, do tell me why your results should give you the confidence to claim authority, which is what you're doing by claiming "fact". It is disputable. You say you don't have the speed. Speed has a relation with distance. The shorter the distance, the less speed you need to cover that distance in a small amount of time. THAT is fact. What I'm saying is you need to start moving AT THE RIGHT TIME to cover that distance and that MOST BB PLAYERS DETECT THE NEED TO MOVE MINUTES TOO LATE. It is the responsibility of the captain to know how much time it's going to take to get from his current position A to any position B (distance D / Speed Vmax) that he might have to be in time needed Tneed. Make no mistake, most players don't pay attention to the clock, nor their current position with regards to their future needed position. Why? Inexperience, timer not drawing much attention. But the only fact is: Distance DToCover / Speed Vmax = Tneed. With Distance DToCover = abs ( ACurrentPosition - BFuturePosition ) Minimise Distance D, Speed V can be considered a constant. Time needed is minimised depending on distance D. So your position with respect to the target destination. That is what I'm saying. What you're saying is "screw positioning and distance control, time is by default too short". Which is just wrong as distance can be controlled by the player. That most opt to ignore it for whatever reason is THEIR (structural) problem. Not a systemic problem as you claim. Of course by following the shortest safe as possible route. It is a captain's job to at all times keep track of how much time you have to get there (how long till a situation occurs) vs how much time you need to get there (A. where would I have to be to nullify that potential threat, B. what is the safest, shortest route to get there and C. how much time does it cost me?). Which means you need to inform yourself constantly with the situation on the other side of the map. Which is also why I keep telling my allies what's happening on my side. When was the last time you structurally saw your allies (or yourself perhaps) provide your allies with unit HP, priority target and other tactical information like threat analysis and probable enemy courses of action? Hardly ever. That is a player and teamwork communication problem, not a system problem. You're making the same argument as bad Heavy players in WoT, that their units are too slow to reach their base to defend, or cap and that especially slow heavies made it impossible to dominate these areas. Which begs the question why my Churchill tanks are the best line of heavies I got and have a huge amount of cap and defense points compared to the people that make these claims on the forums and had awful winrates with the same tanks while stating that this is the reason they lose so many battles: they couldn't get back to base to stop a "lame" cap. Instead, typically you see these people MOVE FURTHER AWAY from a base when it's time to go back. They simply don't know how to play and increase their loss and draw rate because they simply make the wrong decisions. Even when they have more than enough time. When you're saying you're too slow to reach a cap zone, exactly how far did you venture away from the region you're talking about? Because what I'm doing is: start at the far end, work my way back, so that by the time it might be needed to go to the cap zone, I'm there. What I'm saying I see most BB captains do, is they start off with their guns towards the enemy at the beginning of the match, which forces them to turn THE WRONG WAY: either away from the enemy and the center of the map (turning around to their right and creating distance with both enemies and cap), or try to keep their guns on the enemy, forcing them to the side of the map and towards the enemy. What I do, I start with my guns pointed AWAY from the enemy, sail to about 3/4s of the map, turn into my enemy till my guns are trained on them AND I'm sailing back towards the center and support. As stated, most BB captains create more distance to cover by plotting a bad course, not taking into account their gun influences on optimal turn direction that minimises distance and optimises gun time trained on the enemy. THAT is a fact. The majority of players doesn't know how to play. Fact. :/ I'm not going to ask for balance changes with regards to BBs when they can do more than fine. If you have a bad shot and a bad captain, you shouldn't change the rules to accomodate them, you should teach them. If you're going to suggest showing tutorial vids or awareness of optimal tactics images during loading times, I'd be all for it. But draws as is are primarily the result of player choices. I already stated a number of ways to improve the current situation, but you should at least analyse the situation correctly first. BBs have no issue with reaching the appropriate zones, as long as the captain takes that objective into account from the start. And the fact remains, they don't. When I have enemy ships in pursuit I actively draw them away from their objectives and increase their sailing time. And they bite every time. Why? Because it just doesn't occur to them. You can ask for teleporting BBs for all I care, but it still boils down to captains not knowing when to break off an engagement, what course to plot from the beginning of the match to control terrain phyiscally and psychologically and a number of other things. The funny thing is that you only consider the fun of the side that loses a clear win. What about the side that turns a loss into a draw by exploiting the stupidity of the enemy team to forego a win due to the arrogance, bloodlust and greed of the team that was winning? Make no mistake, there are too many draws with the average player. But they also cause them themselves when it isn't necessary! A lot of players forego playing to win. They don't keep an eye on their objectives and let them get out of their reach when they realise they need it (or don't even realise they need it). Many battles are given away when they're not needed to. You can blame the system for this, but the system allows a win in these circumstances. Players are responsible for reigning a win in, rather than risking letting it go by trying another way to win (typically "kill all" mentality) or simply incompetence. Not sure why you're trying to make this about me making it personal, when you're trying to dismiss perfectly fine argumentation as anecdotal evidence.

Ìf you think having 7+ 127mm secondaries with improved accuracy and 6km range is trash, than you haven't used a Nagato or Amagi properly yet.

What? I speak poorly of poor BB captains. Who exactly is twisting words here? Gee. I wonder what you were doing when you made accusations and assumptions about how I could only get stats through divisions and how you completely dismissed it by your own arrogance. Because what you were doing was simply superpositioning your argument as having more value than mine, without actually having an argument to back that up. BBs have no problem with capping or preventing capping as long as they do their job and ensure they are in the correct positions. As such, they can contribute to winning. In fact, I'm often capping more zones with my BB than cruisers in domination matches. So I'm not sure what you're trying to point out here. Your personal quality? :|

Secondary guns range extension or turret traverse if you don't have the captain skill.

I didn't avoid it, I ignored it. In many topics I've already made suggestions such as "stop timer as long as someone is in the cap zone", "stop timer if someone in cap zone is hit", etc. So I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

Speaking of flawed arguments: We are in OBT, you're speaking of CBT... I've spoken of victory condition adaptions many times and made MANY suggestions on other occassions, clearly you've not read them. I simply addressed your claim to draws being too many.

Or he should try harder and more things to change the outcome of the match.

When the french navy loses sight of ships in an atol environment, they have different solutions to ensure hits:

Hitpoints! :p