Figment

You read it as, but it's not what I claimed. You read very selectively what you want to read, tbh you do that a lot and you will never accept a correction that your interpretation is wrong. It's extremely tiring. Take some feedback: you were wrongly interpreting this. Accept that. I'm the author, you cannot tell me what I meant, at most you can tell me the message wasn't received appropriately and you want the message rewritten if it is so you can understand it. Problem is, I have signalled you misunderstood, rephrased to ensure a more clear communication and what do you do? You double down on what you understood and just continue on the same tangent claiming I said something different, ignoring what I actually said repeatedly... Sigh. Oh look it agrees with what I said, basically the same amount of bad play due to players being an average outpooring of the internet, just their performance being reflected differently in stats between beta and release due to map changes and gameplay being tailored to their style of play a little so that they survive more and thus fire a bit more and feel a bit more useful, even get big scores with Thunderer HE, but in the end still lose due to being a liability in general. Again, I never said they got better at playing the game. That's entirely down to your misinterpretation of what was stated. So again, what's the point you're trying to make here? For the record, people don't measure bad play in different game versions where stats have been artificially changed to look better, by looking at the stat changes and saying "hey they got better at playing"... They look at what stupid stuff players do in their battles. BBs have grown a little in impact, cruisers took a hit in performance, but that doesn't mean bad players started playing "better". It meant the game changed to suit them, making it harder for good players to make use of options to defeat bad players. Options that were deliberately taken from them by WG, but which do not make bad players play better, just make them less vulnerable. Look at torp nerfs (indirectly through distance they could be fired from out of crawling smoke and ease of dodging with BB rudder shift and turnrate increases), IFHE nerf, smoke rework, island downsizing, removal of chokepoints... All were major benefits to BBs and they have made it easier to survive even if you played the BB poorly. It has had its impact, but all that happened prior to 2016-2017, so... Can you find similar stats for 2014 ß - 2016 up to the CV rework? *facepalm* That's a total. I broke it up in WR changes due to various reasons and you pretended I said it was because of draw removal (where I mentioned 2-6% explicitly which you somehow changed to up to 16% (!), for you are so ffing brilliant at reading posts!). Ugh. You really have a hard time reading as you can't seem to combine a line that's further away than two pixels with another. CONTEXT. Man. You quote one bloody line instead of reading it in the context of the post! You seem to want to pull things out of context constantly and it's tiring to have to correct you. Hell I explained it three times now and you're still pretending I said 8-10% due to ONE reason. FFS man. No, it doesn't. BECAUSE THE EFFECTS I WAS TALKING ABOUT HAD BEEN IN EFFECT FOR THREE TO FOUR YEARS BY YOUR FIRST DATASET. Your data is COMPLETELY irrelevant without beta to end-of-RTS-CV era stats! After that the effects got polluted even more by other major gameplay changes like the CV rework and radar. You showing those stats is like showing the flatlining of a heart patient and thus concluding he never had a pulse. Ever. The data you provided doesn't mean anything to the argument in question, which you didn't understand in the first place apparently... Well DUH. Nothing much changed in that area during that period because it had already been done! FFS.

You misinterpret the claim… :/ I never said they got better. I said they had it easier as WH tailored the game more to them. You can tell from DD WR and damage output dropping a bit and survival times for BBs increasing post beta. (2015). Not sure where to get those beta stats to compare with though, the impact was presented on forums then by a lot of people complaining the BB only whiners got themselves a buff after buff after buff. Can you get stats from 2014-2015 from that maplesyrup? People are negative. In general they stayed equally skilled on average as it is just an average internet player population. You don’t seem to understand that they don’t need to play better to artificially get slightly better stats… They will still lose a whole lot and be a liability to their team. They just have a few risks less and deal a slight bit more damage due to staying alive a little longer. But pot-kettle, you “are sure” (without evidence), while in actuality you are speculating about the outcome of a hypothetical poll you’re never going to hold… Well, good for you? Beta - 2015 stats? Could you please learn maths? You’re exagerating my claimed numbers. I mentioned 8% as a total effect from multiple changes, not just the one. I also never said draws only affected ratings that hard… Man… I said 2% to 6% was approximately half wins and half losses (and even already said could be a bit better or worse depending on skill, but on average assume 50ish%). That means I claimed 1-3% wins, where, again, I said 2% was a bit more likely for bad players. Enough to turn 37-38%s into 40%ers… Saw plenty BB players in the 34%-38% then who are now likely 40-43% range with improvements in BB buffs reducing their team liability factor as their damage output and survivability increased, while removal of draws artificially masking their poor play a little further. Why you think this is unlikely is beyond me, then again you tend to argue for the sake of argueing without usually having a good grasp on the claims made. You didn’t present any data from 2014-2015 to refute my claims and tried to refute it instead with irrelevant 2019-2021 data. :/ Either way, I do concede I’m working from memory, so if you can direct me to wows databases that keep these older scores I can try to find it for you. And probably link some of that data to patch dates if I’d go and dig through all the patchnotes from beta till some months after the map changes (probably best to stop comparing up to the CV rework). Given the frequency of BB buffs and time to adjust stats I would expect it to take some time to have gone into effect statistically with the incremental changes stacking. So a comparison between 2014-2015-2016 should do the trick. To compare individual patch impacts, that would require probably monthly tracking stats that indicate minor changes. Regardless, I’m also not sure you would even accept such data or any interpretation I’d make, so wondering if it’s worth the effort. :/ I would also like to point at the frequency of complaints we’ve had about cruiser play “being obsoleted by BB buffs”. Didn’t quite agree with the doomsday talk of that either, it made things harder and created an adaption to more stale play, but they had made some good points and were mostly talking about more dynamic cruiser combat. I’m pretty sure that dwarves the amount of “invisible ship firing” complaint threads actually. Just Google “cruiser play obsolete wows” and note the overlap with questions regarding the easy of BB play.

I speak of changes made around beta to just after launch (2015) and you bring up stats from 2019 and 2021? And you’ve disproven what, exactly? More so for players with larger draw rates. Most people I know over 52% win rate had only about 2% draws. Some other people had 4-6% draws iirc, possibly some even worse. Chances are around half of those draws probably became wins and the other half losses. Could be a few more losses if they were really bad, but far from all would be. That’s going to be a pretty big artificial positive change to one’s WR nonetheless if you drew a lot.

Yeah, but didn’t use to be that way. Used to be way more dynamic. Far away is relative, being at the end of one’s range I consider far away. The first line of islands I consider to be far away, whereas I used to go into the middle and up to enemy lines of islands to setup ambushes or outflank. That focus fire isn’t just from the front, but when I play an US BB in particular there are ample opportunities to fire at ships attempting to even reach the first island. They sit on each side of C, waiting. The A area usually has cruisers and DD hump the small islands till BBs do the same. The old A area was very DD and light cruiser friendly. Loads of paths to play cat and mouse. Finding the enemy before they found you and getting the drop on them was a lot of fun. Was also hard for CV to get a good angle. Main issue was the size of the map, with people often being late to relocate, especially if they went around the north end with a BB. RTS CVs had a good time up north as well. Only middle was IMO poorly designed as it was too open, death to anyone (especially lower tiers) venturing near it. Resulted in people moving on A and C, detaching the groups from one another, making it harder to get support or move over. Unfortunately most the map looks like that now. Long range DDs more so than short range. But with more open water comes less predictability to torp BBs (provided they zigzag and change speed). Gunboats may profit if they have the range. Cruisers… depends on which. Battlecruisers and heavy cruisers might, still not as much as BB IMO. I would say this is true for German BBs and probably Italians (range and accuracy issues and secondaries). Plus smoke and torps can be fun in CQB. Though Italians are easy to citadel as well. If Russians and IJN get outmaneouvred they get citadelled way too easily, so they’re not too keen on that. US ships just want a clear shot while they slug somewhere. UK BBs probably benefit more from their concealment in semi-open waters to long range HE spam. More islands means more risk from at close range fired torps. It is very easy to use islands and straights as torp chokepoints with <8km torps from cruisers and DD alike, where you can launch and hide without having to actually give a BB a shot on your side. There are pros and cons, but generally what is most important with more islands is more choices to be made and with lack of information it becomes more important to read the enemy well and predict what side they’ll pass by or use when. Hydro becomes more important as well. So ships with hydro tend to perform better when they get an information advantage, which is true for them around islands and corners.

When? Show me such frequent hot topics. For if they are so widely spread as you claim, you should have no problem finding them. I mean, people complain about SAP not penning at times as well, but I don’t think anyone takes that serious. Yeah…? So 8-10% higher than they used to be… Your reading always this selective? You are confirming my point and pretending you somehow proved the opposite of it… What is the point you are trying to make? Sounds like you are (as often) argueing just to look busy refuting without having any idea of what you are trying to (dis)prove, or even what you are argueing against. Yes, BB play has been made easier. There are more people closer to 45-47% average today and fewer outliers at the high end. That is by WG design. We also used to have about 2% draws for good players, until (especially the American forums I think) clamoured that draws were no good so WG changed the rules. For bad players that % was probably a bit higher due to not being decisive before. So yes, WG artificially changed people’s statistics and especially along lines that aided bad players who would go off chasing for that last kill instead of going for the objectives at the time, thus often throwing matches. And here you were claiming WG could ONLY change stats by having to manipulate matchmaking. Guess you were wrong given they’ve changed it artificially several times by changing the game’s goal and unit designs. Gee, moving your goalposts much without realizing you’re scoring an own goal? Not exactly. By removing cover, you make it easier for specific classes, gameplay and thus specific ships and the players that use those. DDs with low detection and long distance torps typically profit. Especially if they can draw the enemy DDs to within multiple cruiser firing range. It is fairly easy to overextend, especially as many players move back instead of supporting their DD. Either because they are forced to by enemy volume of fire, or because they’re too scared. Light cruisers tend to suffer the most without cover as they would be concentrated on the moment they get spotted by all BBs and they’re detected and eventually overwhelmed by whoever keeps their DD alive. Someone is going to score a citadel by sheer volume of fire with no side protected by islands. This again benefits especially players in BBs, which in turn automatically guarantees it benefits bad players sitting back. BBs want as much open water as possible as it gives more room to maneouvre, makes ambushing harder if not nigh impossible, makes torping harder and gives them a lot of targets to work with from relative safety (cruisers and DDs tend to be the forward units especially in this situation). In the end, a map like Ocean enhances the impact of the lemming train. Moving in large groups on empty maps like Ocean helps keep people alive. But people often move in such groups ever forward rotating around the middle while facing off (or rather, falling back) to the point you often had both lemming trains near full health on one another’s cap because nobody dared to defend such objectives alone. Removing cover further makes angling gameplay more important, but it also benefits those ships that don’t rely on not bing seen. And guess which class of ships is best at angling? Correct! BBs… And who play BBs disproportionately?

Some people don’t look at the map and some don’t speak English and thus often ignore the chat and missions. Objectives should be a bit more obvious on screen for those people, especially when they are time sensitive. Could add extra carrots, like exp for entering the circle. Thing is, OPs have been ignored development wise since beta. It was never fleshed out extremely well. Most players will eventually learn what to do and where to expect ships where, which and when to (dis)engage particular enemy ships (even abuse spawning), but it is a big guess for many new players.

Have since beta, ships firing from behind cover and out of sight have been accepted since forever, as long as they are surface ships. As I said, WG dumbed down the game for the BB only players. Not true. When you remove cover you remove options to get the better positioning. What you get is a greater reliance on angling skills and nose in combat over approaching abilities. A shift in important tactics. Going nose in is easier for bad BB players than it is to make a sound decision when to approach. No, it doesn’t. You need to change the emphasis of what works in terms of strategies vs what doesn’t. What WG has been doing is make torps easier to dodge, safe approaches for DDs and torp cruisers harder, create more stalemate play (which benefits players that don’t know how to move, have range and use HE) and generally create more awareness of enemy positions which eases targeting options, reduces the options to and chances of approach and reduces the survivability of vulnerable units who then keep their distance more, all benefitting BB play who stay alive longer to spam and thus have more impact in comparison, even if totally inept. Used to be so that aggressive initiative ambush play was king. You can still tell in lower tiers where maps have deteriorated less and you can have a lot of close range ambushing how impactful this can be.

Uh huh… Let me roll my eyes a bit about this unfounded speculative nonsense. As said, this would happen LESS than today as the amount of ships that could fire on you throughout the match is reduced. Should I just counter with let the players that state “git gus”, “learn2play” do that? What a lazy argument. :/ Yes they can, they can stimulate their form of tactics to work better. And tbh WG have done enough in that sense with more open map design, BB buffs to turn rates and open mals. As I recall there used to be more people in the 30%s WR. Especially when DDs could do crawling smoke close range torp attacks at 4km or less frequently and 4-5.5km torps were very useful for ambush play against BBs as you could sneak up on them using the more obscuring terrain features. No?

WoT plays that way for a few reasons: Being spotted means anyone with a line of fire will target you. Getting caught in the open will ensure more line of sights. Particularly for artillery and heavy tanks and tank destroyers. If WoT had the same system as WoWs artillery and everyone else would find you everywhere, making any offensive move would be nigh impossible. You need to not be seen to make a move, or keep people at such an angle that they cannot penetrate you easily. Making good use of the terrain is very important to make a move in that sense as it allows you to outflank and setup a crossfire / get to rear/side positions and/or make sure your allies get a good shot from your spotting or forcing turret/hull turning. In WoWs the same is true for broadsides and it keeps people from maneouvring into more aggressive positions. Which wasn’t as much the case prior to CV and radar spotting and gutting most maps from larger islands and smaller island features (if you look at older maps you see they’ve been dumbed down to the benefit of long range BBs). The game used to be a lot more dynamic and with more initiative, where you could reposition behind islands and move up with say an Bismarck, torp cruiser or DD to get to the side of an unsuspecting enemy and pop up within 4-6km at brawling distance, while that enemy sat there thinking to be safe sidescraping an island waiting for enemies to pop out again at 19+km away or at least in front of it. To do that you need to have someone scout or keep them in position while you pick a route that allows a safe, stealthy approach. That isn’t lemming train. That’s outflanking, outpositioning and outmaneouvring. It is a more dynamic offensive gameplay where you need to be on guard much more that is soorly missed compared to the dumbed down game with few available choices and thus options we have now. Today, rather than using ever closer islands to advance, everyone hides behind far away islands or stays at max range (just like your observation in wot), just to avoid getting spotted first and dieing from the long range crossfires. It is the epitome of cowardly lemming play today. Waiting at the back for someone else (DDs) to create an advantage for you or the other side to grow impatient and make a mistake isn’t chess or even checkers. It’s dull, repetitive and requires no thought whatsoever. The old ice map for instance was a lot more fun in that respect, but maps have become so open and spotting mechanics so much more omnipresent that it stifles the match for ten+ minutes into a snooze snipefest where you cannot make any move without getting punished when you get spotted. And since you get spotted more than in WoT, you get the pile ons like in WoT happen occasionally, all the time. Now, big difference between WoT and WoWs is the camping behind (double) bushes that allow you to fire without showing up or let you stay hidden for a really long time till the enemy is in a crossfire and fully exposed for instance. Since we don’t have bushes on water, you won’t get the same amount of camping. We got smoke ships, as well as island HE campers, but those can’t sit behind an elevation and a bush constantly to provide no detection or line of sight, like in WoT. That side of WoT provides a lot of the “dig in and wait, a defensive posture with 80% of your tank behind cover is safer” mentality, so the comparison falls flat there.

Yep and part of the populace thinks dumb people are the only people to design games for. And then assumes that any change is per definition worse for them. In this case there are advantages and disadvantages, but the advantages to more varied and initiative stimulating gameplay for everyone are pretty clear. I also think the complainers don’t understand radio range themselves… If they had played WoT they would know it’s a nuance that gives options where guessing the enemy’s next move is a lot of fun and makes a game with such predictable courses of action a little bit more replayability, last stand fighting chance and variation.

Neither does it being spotted behind an island. If you know it’s there you can take the likeliness of it aiming at you into account. I do, I at least change my routing to minimize potential extra contacts. Besides. You can tell what it is doing and what your allies are doing from its angle on the map. Is it preoccupied or moving on you? That you don’t need a visual confirmation for. Given you don’t have direct line of sight (for if you would have it hadn’t fired) when you only have map info. Sure, there is a chance it might fire at you, but again, you would have been fired at more often in other situations and I don’t hear you protesting about that. But you are literally complaining about their teamwork allowing a shot on you, while you might not see this one completely coming, while if you had seen it you wouldn’t have either. That is fair game to me. You do realize you still determine the course you set so you could still decide not to take that chance, or pick a saver route? You know where that ship is, what more you need? And I seriously doubt you check the turret angles of all far away ships in the heat of battles, if you even could tell the pixel difference. Apparently you didn’t. But at higher tiers this (early) CV spotting can be a major problem for ships relying on positioning and some stealth to make a move and is a severely hated “feature”. If WG was designing this game for 40% WR players, we would not have 40% WR players.

You don’t seem to understand that you still get map information from that spotting. What you are describing is a situation of no information at all, so that is identical to the current situation. Your argument is therefore wrong, for you can angle towards a map location and people already do this. Meanwhile the difference between the two situations you describe is in fact minimal. And for all the “attacks while unaware” that didn’t happen up to the late game, you can easily take one later. You are however advocating for early game attacks while unaware, which reduce far more play time for players if it kills or cripples them. The goal also isn’t to remove all such situations, the goal is to reduce their occurrence frequency and to push them to later in the game, beyond simply having lost a flank. Or being spotted by a periscope depth sub. You do realize that this will become more and more common?

Not on wishful thinking, on the fact that the highest damage comes from being hit in the broadside, which is not done by enemies in front of you if you move up, but from interception fire from the other flank or middle. Any reduction in spotting sharing - especially from CVs if they would only share map information in the first minutes before players have moved into position - will decrease early damage and damage during flanking maneouvres. This is particularly helpful to cruisers.

By that time you’ve already lived much longer than you otherwise would have. So meh?

Define many? Evidence? And how come I never come across them? I noticed… Imagine your side steamrolling a flank. The other side is holding, middle was kind of a draw, but the losing side is pushing and can win. If they defeat them they can try to recuperate and take you on. The engagement remains a challenge. A tough one, but a challenge. Skilled players will have to decide who will win. Yet because the Colorado, Yamato or Vermont or whatever on your flank can see everything on the map, they get free broadside shots while the other side can’t see it coming or fight back. Bunch of random citadels, while being barraged from the front as well, gone local advantage. Gone challenge. Easy win. Nobody is really enthused by the last engagement because the outcome was determined by the lost flank and outnumbered situation. End of engagement, congratulations, it is a slaughter. I’ve been there a lot, it’s not fun to slaughter people who cannot fight back. It’s not fun to see all your effort go to waste in fights you can’t win either. At least not when they all pile on you at once. Worse if you’re a ship that has to chase a sub. No, defeatism is triggered. Overwhelming odds, a system that stimulates a higher leverage for the winning side and a dose of realism do that. They have map information and chat. Some people have mods that give health bars (I don’t btw). I don’t need more than map info to draw up a plan. Do you need a crutch? Do realize that lowered situational awareness goes for both sides. This provides opportunities for ambushing, positioning and evasion. That is how you rectify a situation where you’re outnumbered or outgunned, you remove their advantages and take them on one at a time. Which is only possible if you have some level of stealth and importantly hp and time. If they can’t reduce your hp early from a distance, this creates time for you to heal up, to scout, to finish off a local target rather than face them all at once. If you don’t see how to use this, you might be relying on other people’s info too much and not on your own skills. Yoloing will be less of a problem, they’ll live longer, perhaps long enough to learn, to do at least something or to mitigate their mistake. That is mostly map info. So wouldn’t change. Map info. Wouldn’t change. Map info. Wouldn’t change. Map info. Wouldn’t change. Map info. Again, you still get to see the ships and their names on the map (press alt for names). You don’t get that info from the screen only. If you do that’s just more evidence the game’s too dumbed down as is. There is a map for a reason. But what is clear to me you havn’t actually read the proposal and didn’t take time to comprehend it, but just made a bunch of assumptions, right? Got anything else? It works to the advantage of both, the good player will have to be able to predict moves, where a bad player still gets the chance to catch off guard. I’ve played WoT long enough to know the value of scouting. Good players can go cocky and overconfident and drive straight into a trap, because they made a wrong assumption or played too conservative. Initiative will be rewarded so generally good players will keep an advantage. The enemy will just have a bit more time by not being broadsided by those good players on the other flank. They will be outmatched by the local good players, but not by the local AND those on the other end of the map. Their odds will increase a bit when piled on less to last a bit longer and have more fun, even if they still lose to superior play. They might even last long enough to learn something. The more intel you have, the less mistakes you can make. So that by definition favours those who are better. Yes. I know quite a few good people who quit over the introduction of radar and CVs ruining their DD/cruiser play due to being too vulnerable in detection. A lot of people quit over the years due to the game stimulating long range BBs sitting back. Secondary brawling BBs have been neutered till the recent German additions. Flanking cruisers with weak sides have had it very tough under those conditions. A lot of people enjoy brawling more than a stale sniping game. Reducing submarine awareness and scouting, giving them distinct sit awareness weaknesses to exploit will for sure make them more acceptable. And those subs will stay, so we’ll need a different way to make their scouting less decisive.

Aaaaactually, that’s just a circle on the map in WoT, which you can switch on and off. Explaining this can be done pre-match in the “tips” section. It’s not an argument to say “it’s not explained now”, sure, if something isn’t implemented there’s no reason to explain it. Fewer enemies will see you, hence the amount of attacks targeting you similtaneously from unexpected angles will decrease. More of the attacks will be due to having line of sight on you, which is no different from today’s situation. The only cases this would be true for is when someone on your team spots an enemy but is outside of your radio range, while they are within radio range of an ally that spots you and targeting range of you. You would still get their map position, but you would receive that fire today as well. Since you know their map position, it shouldn’t be ‘unexpected’ that they might target you. Only difference is you wouldn’t return fire, but you likely wouldn’t anyway in either situation due to being otherwise engaged with closer targets. However, this will not be as frequent as the situations in which you would not receive additional attacks on you, therefore it’s a better situation for you.

Turrets? Wouldn't mind some sub... tit... les to go with them though. >.> Speaking of which, do the old ones all have something about seeing submarines? Not that I'd hear the difference at the moment. Got ARP Kongu with cap'n, 2 Nelsons, And a couple unassigned IJN and Ger I think. No idea which tbh. PS: The most confusing special cap'n remains Jingles though. Cause I can actually understand what he's saying and his voice macros are all bugged and linked to the wrong events. When a DD is sighted he yells about cruisers being detected, when ships sinks he doesn't know allied from enemies and pretty much everything else is linked to the wrong things. Any idea if this can be fixed?

Sometimes aborting and trying again helps with this. Same goes for the dockyard. Wonder if this has to do with buffering issues or something.

I don't see the understanding as a major problem as is, don't even see where you get this from as people are informed of being spotted by the game and I never see questions about this. I do see people whine about being targeted by skilled people inside smoke (blaming hacks and underestimating their own skill to be predictable), but that's about it. Coping with the extensive "constantly being spotted" situation by the entire map is much harder to deal with for both good and bad players. So since you have no hard data to back this up, I really can't give any credence to such an arbitrary claim. :/ Too useful. Of course with more information comes a more informed decision. It also removes a lot of unpredictability from a match, which is actually a bad thing. But it can also create a sense of defeatism, which leads to decisions that are counterproductive for a team effort to reestablish control or have a fighting chance. Too much information is bad. There should be a significant fog of war. Logistically time needs to be given for different fronts to resolve themselves without too much interference from other sides of the map (this complicates things, particularly for the outnumbered side, especially if the opposite flank collapsed). Time should be granted to rectify the situation. Mistakes must be possible to be made to be exploited by others. Particularly in a situation where steamrolls occur in large part because of a majority of players being able to freely target the fewer in number without any returned fire. With less indirect spotting, this creates a little bit of time for an outnumbered enemy to win the local fight before having to take on the remainder. Your scope and desires are IMO limited, shortsighted and a bit selfish. Why should you be entitled to this targeting information beyond map information? You havn't given any good reason, just that you find it convenient (and you probably can land some extra free shots for free exp for yourself during a steamroll, before your allies mob up). Sure, there are situations where you, offensively, can use this information. But when you're outnumbered and outflanked, it just heaps on the problems you're already in and it doesn't improve the experience of the game. A good player will be able to use this more limited situation to their advantage by segregating enemies better from their peers and keeping up a bit of a fight to turn the tables for longer, while bad players simply get more time to learn due to facing a little less fire. All that helps in improving their user experience, their level of acceptance, which reduce stress, which reduces toxic responses and ultimately even improves retention rate.

Yes. Because WG already has implemented such a system before... World of Tanks. And what we currently have here is the same system, just with infinite radio range. So all they need to do is add a radio range variable to the ships... https://ag.hyperxgaming.com/article/5710/world-of-tanks-view-spotting-and-signal-range-guide

See my edit of the post you quoted as well. There's no reason to assume the current system is the gold standard. As stated in the edit above, WoT uses a similar system. Unless you think nobody understands scouting in WoT, the suggestion that it's too complicated is simply utter and verifiable nonsense. EDIT: I understand you were speaking in general terms, but conditions can also simplify things or keep it equally complicated. In this case it complicates things a little for snipers relying on indirect information, but significantly simplifies the need for full understanding for those who are engaged in local battles as they don't need to divide their attention as much.

In the current system the difference is bigger... Because you need to be more aware in the current system of what happens on the other side of the map in order to avoid getting hit. Which leads to most people either being afraid to make a move, or not making a move because they know they'll die upon getting spotted due to being piled on and those that do make a move while not being aware getting shot from nowhere. EDIT: In my system, you have fewer threats you need to be weary off and know about, thus you're more likely to have sufficient information to be able to make a move, since fewer enemies will be targeting you (you may still know their map locations), leading to a more friendly environment for initiative and the less aware. More aggressive play and more focus on the local area, which means it is also more noobfriendly in that sense. There will be more closer range duels as well as more ambushes. Experienced players will be able to use the additional options better, but noobs will be able to at least make a move without immediately being punished from across the map. For subs and CVs it will be a harder environment. CQC (secondary) BBs, Cruisers and DDs will benefit the most. So thanks for agreeing that my system is better as player skill gap related to situational awareness and understanding of mechanics would decrease. ;) EDIT 2: Besides, it's basically an adaptation from the scouting system in WoT. So please don't pretend there's no precedent or it's such a wild idea. The only thing new is periscope depth spotting funneling really.

That might be your opinion, it's also completely unsubstantiated. Can you explain why they have to understand the mechanics in the first place? They need to know detection range and line of sight in both situations. Just that in the current situation they're less aware of who'll be able to see them as the information is shared not just locally, but mapwide. So this system is in fact simpler to play in as you need less situational awareness of the entire map than in the current system in order to decide whether you can attempt a move. Their limited map knowledge will be a closer approximation of the realistic threats. The question of whether people understand the mechanics has nothing to do with whether or not they can play a game anyway. People don't understand RNG, doesn't stop them from pointing and clicking either.

I've had this a lot. Up to 4-5 minutes in game at times. I've had issues with my Nvidia card overheating (eventually it burned out, since replacing I'm using an extra fan under my laptop).and frequent 100% CPU usage which I havn't solved yet. So might be related to that? (Still manage to become #1 in exp frequently despite not being present for 5 mins regardless of ship... WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE DO IN THOSE FIRST MINUTES THAT I'M MISSING!?)

“Clicking somewhere else in the menu to get rid of the notification prior to looking” isn’t in the list. :(