Figment

Yeah, you and everyone else with you.

Honestly I don't even care about exactly how effective it is: it's simply that Wargaming keeps looking for ways to nerf DDs, rather than say take the big toys from inept players who can't handle them until they're ready. But I've already seen it be very effective in my first Kuma match with it. Forcing players to use torps to learn how to defend against them before you give them BBs would actually "fix" the mentality issue. You make them invested in torps too. Currently they just ignore them and thus any nerf to it benefits players that play and have played only US cruisers and BBs. You know, the people who are 90% of the time responsible for nerf-torps-threads. All this anti-torp whining that will continue and continue as long as dumb people don't have any idea how DDs play will just result in needless nerfs. DDs should start at tier I, because it's the hardest thing to learn to play with and against and you're going to need those dodging skills from tier II and up. DDs were fine before all the nerfs began during CBT. US DDs were even very fun to play with: high risk, high reward. It's currently Extreme Risk, Medium Reward. Currently it is just getting worse and worse and it'll continue to do so as long as the mentality doesn't change.

If battlecount isn't increasing, you're playing CO-OP.

kbb07142, on 27 July 2015 - 08:20 PM, said: How can they manage to balance carriers at low tiers, but the higher you go the more ridiculous they get despite the AA? Last game i was doing very will in my myogi Uhm. Shouldn't you make a comparison for a BB that actually... you know... HAS AA, to be able to complain about high tier CVs? Like say, bring up an anecdote for a Nagato, Amagi, Yamato? And uhm... then still realise you should sail in groups?

1. AP works equally well on DDs in my experience. Most the time even better, actually (one hits). 2. Barrage works long enough, I just activate it for the first then press ctrl+click on incoming torp bombers: the dive bombers will miss due to panic + coming at me from the side (yes, I turn), the barrage will primarily be used on the torp bombers to reduce the number of torps launched. 3. Depends on the target, but likely I'll engage the cruiser that's a certain target, rather than something that MIGHT be a target (rather than turning away - at long range especially with AP, actually, since if it hits, it's likely a citadel hit coming from above). That other target won't have a shot on me for 15 seconds + time I use to maneouvre, by the time the other is a better target, I'll be reloaded. 4. Depends on who is closest and thus constitutes the biggest threat. But generally, the DD first since you can't do much if it gets too close. I've actually won nearby engagements (at ramming distance) with bigger ships since they can't dodge, though the occasional DD ram was fun with my Saipan and Lexington. Rest you can flee for using islands for cover to give you time for extra attacks. Especially the BB is an easy target later on that you can keep from firing at you for some time. The DD will be hardest to hit though and the cruiser will eat your aircraft while setting you on fire if you don't kill it. 5. Go for the cap point: they'll come in one by one, aircraft shouldn't be a problem, but a cruiser or BB being forced to go in a straight line and through choke points at a cap zone is a much better target than a "wild" one.

Basically am suggesting something similar, though I think my system is a bit better worked out in detail. But this "hi, we just ruined your ship after you just magically fixed yourself and now we make you wait for the next magic fix, or you just wait till you die for a minute with your engine out just after you repaired it" is getting quite old quite quickly. Got hit by three or four HE shells in my Phoenix just after my engine was fixed: 7 critical systems die: two turrets, one set of torp tubes, some AA, the rudder, secondary guns and ofcourse, the engine. You can't have an instant-fix system when you get damaged this easily to completely cripple you for the duration of a minute. Especially not after you just used your superglue to fix your ship for similar things just moments earlier. It just makes no sense and it feels very bad.

Never, ever have I heard more black-and-white [edited]. Not in the least since I've single handedly killed groups of four five alone... As a Nagato during beta (5kills and 60% damage against an Amagi), as an Agami during battle (dead Yamato, two DDs and one cruiser), as a Pensacola during beta (4 kills) and as a DD almost every good match. Our team has been six ships down and killed or damaged several by kiting them such that our last ship could kill them. And that is just anecdotal evidence of kills. Does it take a bad enemy? Not always, if you outrange, outspeed and outposition them, then a tactical retreat can easily make all the difference. Then there is the situation where you can block an enemy from advancing by threatening with torpedoes. Then there are times where you can lure an enemy fleet of BBs to the far corner of a map: even if you die your side wins by cap. Tactical victory! What about simply resetting an enemy from capping or stalling by entering the cap circle? Who cares if you die? That isn't relevant: what is relevant is what you did for the team by sacrificing yourself. Stop thinking in absolutes. Complete [edited] statements like yours make me cringe about the state of humanity's capacity for analysis. Don't move the post now, you can't say "never, ever", leaving no room for nuance or alternatives and then say "okay there are exceptions". You don't play this game with survival in mind. Only if you think you are not expendable can you make such a weird statement. Just admit you're wrong now before you suggest others there is only one way of playing a game. Circumstance and context. Context includes the quality of enemy players, which you don't dismiss as a factor, but also doesn't excuse you from (not) trying. Everything you do should be an evaluated and educated risk based on the capacities of your ship, positions of friendlies, goals and objectives.

Kill rate is not that relevant, the final killing blow can be damage over time from fire or flooding, cruisers can easily "steal" kills with their high rate of fire and fast shell velocity. Damage is very relevant, but you just need an average between 31K and 40K to be able to get a good winrate. The most important thing in this game is positioning such that you can maintain your dps AND control and/or reach your/enemy objectives in time, even if the rest of your fleet fails. The point is to damage the enemy enough to have your fleet be able to finish up ships one by one in the mob up (getting them in range one by one and being able to have two to three ships kill the enemy in three volleys max, so they can move on to the next right behind it. At least they should have created a controlled baiting situation forcing the enemy to come to them on their terms (probably from the other side of the map, so at full speed, leaving their allies behind because that fleet cannot get back in time in its entirety in the time limit of the game). Remember that you don't need to kill the enemy completely to win. I often have to finish up with the last two ships on my team against slightly superior numbers. That's not a problem if they have been properly damaged by your team, or if you have a stealthy unit like a DD and can maintain the element of surprise. When you have a lemming train fleet, the enemy knows more or less where you are and can more easily contain your DDs especially by circling and giving them little time to retreat and reload. The main reason I see mini fleets fail is because one or more of them do not know when to turn back or how to use their ship (angle, escape plan missing, BB cowardice, poor communication, getting in range of too many ships at once, too little support, etc...) To then have people proclaim it is a bad tactic imo simply shows they don't know what their team is doing, why they fail(ed) and what is going to happen next.

Spruty, on 21 July 2015 - 04:00 PM, said: *Stuff that leads to a 47% winrate.* No offense, but please listen to people with winrates above 55%, rather than people who only win when the group wins by accident.

People who think fleet combat is the best way to play capture the flag in my opinion have very little sense of tactics, very little creativity if this is the only tactic they think is feasible (yes spreading in smaller groups/minifleets is actually better in most circumstances) and are very easily outplayed. I'm not saying this to offend you, but to wake you up. Tactics are decided based on circumstance, not on dogma or doctrine. would go into detail, but am on holiday on my iPhone. But fleet tactics are far more complex than "follow the herd". You need intel, you need appropriate screening and positioning to optimize range and dps. You have to avoid being kited by two ships that are faster and outrange you for instance. And yes, most players (some might be among the readers) are simply not smart enough to recognise actual tactics, let alone employ them. No, I don't have a very high opinion of gamers. Why? They are humans. And humans are stupid. They can easily be played on their emotions (yes even by just positioning your own ship, sub-fleet or fleet you can play with the mind of an enemy player). I find the simplicity with which this game is approached, especially the utter deliberate ignorance of game goals due to dogma appaling. I'm sorry, but learn to play: - look at the map constantly - look at the composition of your team (classes of ships and ranges) and proximity to important regions of both you and the enemy - look at what the enemy team does before making any move that commits you to a plan that is unrealistic. - combine the above - prevent your side being funneled - stall or deter the enemy from good positions and objectives - let the enemy think you're stronger than you are (four five units visible can be interpreted as the entire fleet). - control the enemy advancement by kiting / blocking / baiting / funneling / detering / etc - get your fleet(s) or covert strike units to proper positions that maximise firepower and dps of all ships, not just the front few. etc etc but always keep in mind that the enemy doesn't know what it's doing as a team. Isolate enemies, get local numerical or other firepower advantages and break through to engage the enemy in such a way you both attack them and defend your objectives like cap zones. All that fleet firepower is utterly useless when in the wrong place.

Too much micromanagement? You do realise WoT has individual module repair? The only differences would be basing it on recuperating stamina rather than fixed number of (instant) repairs, as the repair function now is also unlimited and that the effect wouldn't be instant, but a speed up.

When you -1, do tell why and why you would not have fired with the friendly ship moving away from your line of fire. The path between 3 and 4 is not one you would normally take and even if one does, then one could have avoided the torpedoes quite easily still, IF one had paid attention to their UI and the voice over warning for torps. Even while in gunner mode you get these warnings quite large on screen (from friendlies while they're still about 4-5 kilometers away even...) and should be sufficient reason to immediately react and pay attention to the safety of ones own ship, rather than the target. He must have had the UI warning right after he made the U-turn and even before he turned back into the torpedoes. There was more than enough time to become situational aware and respond, especially with an agile cruiser like the one he had. He was, could and should have turned around to the left, ensuring space for allies to engage the enemy, creating distance, etc. So far I'm seeing people trying to excuse people (or themselves?) from situational awareness while gunning, so they can blame getting hit by friendly torps on other people alone, rather than taking at least some of the responsibility when applicable (tunnelvision). The responsibility of the torping person only goes as far as predicting the friendly's movement and ensuring it's within reason to assume it's safe to fire and trying to ensure everyone is aware (you can't slap someone in the face to ask them to pay attention, sadly). Safety is not just up to one person. I warned him, the game warned him. What line is there where you personally do not excuse tunnelvision any longer? It's hypocritical to suggest that one party involved is allowed tunnelvision and does not need to take the (future) movement, actions and targets of allies in mind (the one that will end up blocking the route) due to being in an engagement and tunnelvision, while suggesting someone else should be fully aware of the future movements of another captain that aren't very likely to occur at all (and also not be in tunnelvision). The above is not a zig-zag dodge that could be predicted. It's a completely opportunistic improvised change of route. Great, but if you make a new routeplan to go with this new plan, you should also first check if it's safe to take that new route (decisionmaking process). Not just spam in tunnelvision with a big obsessive grin on it while making yourself oblivious to the outside world. At that point, the torped player becomes just as, if not more liable due to not coordinating with his team members. There's a lot of directions that unit could have gone to, of all directions, this is the one he chose and failed to inform anyone on. Situational awareness is a skill that's not only down to one person. Someone having less experience isn't less responsible for their own actions. They should learn from it and learn to work WITH the team and learn how to ensure optimal firing lanes for all, not get in each other's way and optimise the team's combat efficiency and safety, rather than play solo and yolo.

It's interesting that you think there's only one person with situational awareness, greed is in play, etc. Lot of bad assumptions. Like the previous ones, none of which were accurate and in fact explained (remember that line I wrote about last chance to torp it for any of us and to get flood damage going for a while). What was it you said about assumptions again? See, assumptions are one thing, making assumptions about a situation you wern't in after someone in detail explained what happened? No. Sorry, but again, I didn't fire "near" the friendly: TWO SHIPLENGTHS AWAY FROM A UNIT SAILING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. Dude. You just want to be "right", even if you wern't there. Bad call. Quite insulting too, since it's clear you ignore whatever has been written just to play a blame game and "protect the innocent torped person". As I've said before, this was a very freak occurance, blamed solely on a unit that didn't pay attention to his surroundings at all and was too busy with himself to detect a threat. I'm very sorry if you can't handle the concept that both parties involved take blame, but I got a 57% winrate for a very good reason: I know what I'm doing. I can't help it that a 40% winrate person decides to play meatshield for the enemy ship. Smart people do not place themselves in between an enemy and their allies, especially not after having received several warnings and indications this could occur. Tunnelvision is never an excuse. It's a cause for disaster. If any of you try to argue that an engagement should rob people from situational awareness and any subsequent consequences, then you're simply a bad player yourself. That's like argueing the islands should move out of the way when you're about to ram them, just because you're in gunner mode and not paying attention to the geography, then blame the geography. EDIT: Situationsketch:

Right, lots of assumptions made there. :/ 1. Was in a Tenryu (quarter health after previous attack run) at 7.2km from a BB that's closing in slowly and had been going in a straight line for quite some time, even after my previous torp hit (hit only two out of four due to expecting him to turn, which he didn't). But no, I'm not going to get close again. 2. That BB was very distracted. Trust me. It works at tier 4 BB captain skillzors. 3. The guy almost rammed me on my retreat as he was veering to the north west and I had to go around him. I could barely steer clear from him before as he steered into me then too (I was already a km or two clear, when he made a turn without looking, we both recuperated just in time. hence why I knew he had seen me). 4. if people don't pay attention to warnings that's not my problem. Situational awareness is everyone's responsibility. Don't shift HIS lack of it on me. Couldn't do more. 5. Nope. IJN tier III Cruiser (see 1) Why do you assume DD? I'm visible at 8.2km with it, I can't get much closer when the BB breaks for open water again. Was then or never. Risk free at the time since the BB was looking at the BB north west from the cruiser that would eventually get hit (and the BB was completely ignoring all fire on it and indeed did not change course till it almost sank a minute or three later despite continuous fire). Point is that situational awareness is everyone's responsibility. When I play DD or torp cruiser, I ALWAYS double check before starting my run for friendlies and if anyone else is making a run as well when there's other DDs in the area. Don't tell me how to play, allow me to tell others since my winrate is high enough in everything. As said, it's the first time in over 1000 matches that I accidentally torped someone. I know what I'm doing. The guy I hit though? Completely new low win rate player. :/ Apparently too preoccupied with firing his guns to look around where he is sailing (or why he is sailing somewhere). If he had been moving south east or gave any indication that he would, I'd never have fired. Losing half your speed by making a sharp u-turn right like he did is just utterly bonkers. Especially when you know there's a torp cruiser or DD next to you going for the same target. You can't pin fleet maneouvres on one person. Everyone's responsible, especially the ones firing the torps, but they can only reduce risk to a certain degree. Stupidity cannot be calculated in at all times, or we need to paint our barrels orange and add huge warning signs everywhere in the middle of the ocean warning for crossing elderly torps.

If they come around your side - and your BB isn't a Myogi or Kawachi - you should have enough AA exposure on those aircraft to take out half the torp bombers. Whatever they can still fire is in panicked mode and is prone to missing. At most that's two torp hits, if any. You can only do such a thing (flying around an aircraft) as long as you're not in an AA zone.

1. You crossed just behind them seconds earlier, that should make them aware of your presence, class, unit type and thus armament 2. You target the enemy with marking on a torpable BB target just 6km away from them (that alone should be enough reason to make room for torp runs) 3. You TELL THEM in chat there's GOING TO BE torps 4. They get markers in their UI and a guy shouting TORPEDOES ON STARBOARD 5. You fire the torpedoes two ship lengths to their right, north-east bound, while they are sailing angled north-west Sorry, if you then still make a U-turn to catch all torps fired, you're pretty much doing it on purpose. You don't zig zag a cruiser by going into the firing line of your allies AND the full broadside of the enemy BB. If you don't provide any warnings, fair enough, you shouldn't have fired. But this was completely his fault. I hardly ever saw maneouvres that bad.

Sometimes you have to take the risk to not have everyone die, especially when the risk is really low. If you fire them behind a unit's path (as in, the unit already passed by and sails AWAY from the torp path), there's no reason to assume that unit will make a 180 degrees turn when they can (and should) just steer clear instead. Especially not when you give them three warnings.

Both the one firing the torps and the one not keeping a clear path for their allies are at fault. If you don't keep a clear path, you reduce your team's damage output. I've had the first TK in hundreds and hundreds of battle today, because a ship angled like this: \ (and with enemies to his right front at 6km range) Decided to turn right all of a sudden, even though I had just launched torps on the BB sailing there. With today's warning signals, he should have seen that coming, especially as he crossed my path just seconds earlier and should have known I was there, marked the target and had torps as main weapons... :/

Don't you mean "Ze baquettezzzzzzzZZZZzZzzz"? Hon hon hon

I think the main reason it feels that way is the frequency of fire. Even if you get a 20% hitrate on a cruiser, you're too busy with the next volley to think about all the shots you missed. :/

So you worked to get there (as did I, in CBT my BBs started at 45% winrates, now I'm in the 60s-70s winrates). All on account of improved leading targets, positioning and some dodging. They are in fact bringing my stats up, suggesting they're the most powerful and easy to use stuff in my port. So excuse me if I don't consider anything that can do 40K+ damage per match on average (and I did over 80K eventually in CBT with the Nagato and Amagi) poorly balanced. :/ It's not a pure lottery, even if it's the closest you get among the ships due to the lowest accuracy rate. But despite of that, you can - with practice - do very, very well. :/

I prefer to go with "The Vulcan just told the Romulan he's being illogical." Or: "Klingon cruiser sighted!" *No offense intended to ST fans

http://worldofwarships.eu/community/accounts/515258097-/ Because these stats for your BBs are awful, right?

They CAN do that damage (and it's the ones people report upon). But that's not average damage if the enemy is capable of dodging. It's got plenty of counters: you got AA cruisers and BBs like the Yamato shot down most your air. With the Pensacola I downed 39 aircraft in one match once and proceeded to kill the CV. DDs are very good at killing them (provided they are poorly screened) and everything else can just kill them anyway.

We all know the British would never have ruled at sea if it wasn't for the French invading the Netherlands on their way to Russia! Or they did because we destroyed their entire aging navy in the Thames, making them built a new modern fleet, You're welcome for taking out your trash!