Figment

When a sub is radared they do get piled on often, but I'd rather see the air drop range be nerfed a little bit than the radar option removed.

I wouldn't mind a capture the flag mode where: You need to control an area of the map in the vicinity of the enemy's starting line (not disputed, but controlled) to generate a flag. Say the two areas between the middle and the flank of the starting line. This flag needs to be taken back to your base. The point score for bringing the flag back to base is inversely related to the amount of ships both sides have left: if you're disadvantaged numerically, the flag is worth more points. This in order to not end the game too quickly and give the surviving disadvantaged team members a way to fight back to a win. Both sides can hold one flag each. Both sides can hold one at the same time . The ship carrying the flag will be... the Flag Ship of your team (pun intended). Up for debate, rules to acquire the Flag Ship status: If multiple ships are in the area when it becomes controlled, the ship that: Has been in the area the longest (first to enter) will become the Flag Ship. If multiple ships entered at the same time, then the ship with the highest % of health will become the Flag Ship (greatest survivability). If this is equal as well, then the highest tier ship will become the Flag Ship. If that is equal as well, then the fastest ship becomes the Flag Ship. If that is equal as well, then the ship closest to home base will become the Flag Ship Carrying the flag would: increase the Flag Ship's base surface detectability by ~10% (detection by air remains the same) increase your team's point score with a +2/second ticker Subs would not be able to go below periscope depth for long without losing the +2/s ticker, this in order to avoid exploiting invisibility. Optional rule: when both sides hold a flag, the additional score ticker is halfed to +1/second. Sinking the Flag Ship, would reset the flag and your team gets a bonus on top of the usual ship sinking score points for the kill, again based on the challenge level, due to the disparity in team numbers. Killing a Flag Ship with fewer ships than the enemy thus increases the kill score gained significantly as this is relatively challenging when you don't have the numbers to have a presence in, let alone control large sections of the map. Damaging/killing a Flag Ship results in a bit of extra XP and credits post-game and base defense merit badges (for missions). This mode allows for a bit of (stealth) raiding and convoy escorting gameplay, but also gives teams with fewer numbers a way to win by either intercepting Flag Ships for additional score or running the score up by surviving while holding onto a flag. This mode should stimulate offensive play, teamwork and on the other hand tenacity. Of course, the teams that are ahead in numbers have a lower workload and have more leverage to get such a job done. Hence IMO they should benefit less from point gains than teams on the losing end would. It would stimulate fighting to the end for the losing team if there's a chance in it for them and allow outnumbered players try to turn things around, while the winning team has to be a bit more strategic about using and protecting their Flag Ship as there would be a boost to winning, but at a higher risk to the win as the cost if the Flag Ship being lost is relatively greater. IMO it should be part of the Random and Ranked rotations and not be a separate mode (beyond testing phase and getting it tweaked for balance issues), in order to minimize match maker splitting. Could be fun in Clan Wars due to the higher degree of organization that could be applied in this mode. Could be applied to any tier IMO as well. It's a very basic game principle and of course some players will be better at this than others, but it would work in randoms well enough. Yes, some random 40% ship captain will run their Flag Ship at low health and high point ticker scores towards the enemy to get that extra kill and instead get sunk, losing the match instead. But that could be your opponent's teammate. ;)

You do realise we mostly play King of the Hill right now? (A mode in Call of Duty!? D: Oh noes! UNINSTALL IMMEDIATELY EW ICKY ICKY!) EDIT: Capture the flag can be done in many ways and Call of Duty is just one way of doing this. In PlanetSide you had Lattice Logistics Units (LLU) you had to move by ground (or often amphibious vehicle in my case) over sometimes 8km distance, while being chased by the entire airforce of the enemy team of 150 people on that continent. Meanwhile your side had to hold control of the control point, often under siege from a defending regiment of up to a 100 infantry. Holding a point wouldn't be logical here. That required a lot more coordination, but guess what, your side of about 150 people was also mostly randoms and yet it worked. Most the time. And both sides had a lot of fun stopping or organising the capture. Same concept of capture the flag, completely different execution and gameplay. Sometimes a noob got it and messed up. So what, that's all part of the game. Anyone have a real argument against?

Ah the classic "but there be noobs and I hate noobs and they ruin my life" argument. You know, we wouldn't have any games at all if all devs had your attitude.

The main issue I have with all these modes is that they take people out of the main circulation, force them to play very specific tiers in a different MM. This reduces the amount of players in randoms, increasing wait times there. So though in general I'd be in favour of having these modes integrated with randoms or having the MM be smart where you could select one or two modes you want to opt out from, but where nobody knows in advance which one you're playing right now, and draw from the same MM player pool. However, I don't like this particular mode because of the leverage increases for an already winning side. As if numbers and therefore DPS and HP isn't enough when your team is behind in score. It's not as bad as the previous incarnation I think, where attrition play was much harder with instant health buffs (which the winning side could get more, more frequently off) opposed to a +HP tick per second. Still, I don't like the mode even if my Benson was very suited for it.

I set my expectations to 0. Expecting only flags.

Currently doing in between 8K and 50K damage. Dodging seems to be more common sense now though, but indeed fewer torps hitting islands.

Wouldn't mind Kansas against a Hannover or so, at least a barn big enough that you can hit. ;)

I hope you see the principle problems with this post when it comes from a staff member. ;) It's excusing 'own' (company's) flawed work on one side by lowering standards of quality expectation on the one hand and then questioning whether standards of quality expectation should even apply to a whole class and therefore concluding sloppy design choices or oversights are okay. Personally would just pass this on to the appropriate developer and get it patched out later as a minor issue, but one worthy of a fix nonetheless, especially since it's so easy to fix. >.>

No, no, nothing better than thinking you cleared an island, putting auto-pilot on with full forward speed active and auto-pilot decides that you're an inch too close to the island, or decides you shouldn't move in between two islands and goes into full reverse in front of enemies, after which your team decries "your" stupid actions. There is probably little worse developed in this game than the AI, especially foolish when they design a ship class to become dependent on it as you can't switch back and forth between flight and ship mode (which is utterly stupid design). In the old RTS setup you could switch between map and ship mode without issue, allowing you to make both defensive and offensive actions at the same time, which every other ship class in game can do much better already due to not having to switch between modes. It's already amazing that auto-pilot doesn't use full speed when a turn is started on regular ships and can't calculate speed changes required for the ship at hand and doesn't take steering into account that well, never mind making it through tighter straights between islands. But that's all relatively difficult coding. Spawn points are decided by developers directly for each individual map. Which is also why it's sometimes ridiculous that you get two ships on a flank, one of which a CV, while the opposite side features 5-6 ships on the same flank.

Another ship with an L, another good run. Really should have activated that premium earlier today. :P It's a pretty good gunship at 12km basic range, even with just two fogs and few speed boosters to use as those 12km torps can catch a lot of unsuspecting victims by surprise. :)

I got aome free exp, some commander exp, some flags, but mostly shitloads of pretty standard camos. :/ Including out of premium Black Friday containers.

Took my stock Leander out for its second or third spin. Life was good. Had I activated my free premium day earlier, it'd been 17K exp and 55K commander exp...

That and what tiers he faced and damaged.

Cruisers can do fine in the current environment. It often means you have to choose your battles though and in some cases don't fire if you can to maintain one's concealment. I mean the Dutch cruisers have awful guns, yet I'm quite capable of scoring top score in many matches with them. And not just because the entire rest of the team sucks, nor thanks to the air strike (it helps if a BB offers to sit still though), but because of their fire chance and concealment range. The US cruisers are pretty hard to master in general and the radar on them is more suited to cleaning up and defense than it is for aggressive pushing. It can help when used in the start of the match, but you need the support to ensure the target dies as the longer that target spots you, the more likely your death is. Islands are basically your only chance and in that case taking out those DDs often comes down to having other ships within range to do the damage for you. But that requires an island within appropriate range which you can actually reach safely, which at the start of the match is dubious at best, even at improved US cruisers concealment ranges.

Pay-out would probably be higher if he hit DDs in the losses and less so in the win, because of the hp percentage thing.

Historical accuracy? Superior Dutch aerial supremacy says hi. (It's true though that the Fokkers were the highest quality aircraft, until an US manufacturer did a "non-biased" survey of a high profile aircrash in which Fokker's glued wing design - since they wern't made with bolted aluminium - was blamed for clearly totally non-commercial reasons by a company that sold aluminium bolted aircraft and WG clearly reflects this historical injustice by providing the Dutch with aerial supremacy.).

Meh, got called a noob for being top three in a Haarlem yesterday, luring five ships (including his) out of position to overextend into a crossfire and killing off three, including the clearly-not-a-noob. He then whined that (my 61% WR Haarlem) has bad stats on it (yes it can get instagibbed lowering average damage per match, who knew?) so I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about. He of course, had his stats hidden, but would reveal them to me if I promised I'd instantly quit if they'd be better than mine. (lol, sure, a Kiev captain that kept missing torps and proclaimed I hit an island, even if I just used it as strategic forward position cover, determined his position through the spotting warning and baited his torps, thrice (none hit and it never occured to him in the late game to use his Kiev's guns from smoke to kill my 6K remaining Haarlem - of course I hydroed him to death from 5km since he stayed in his fog, the clearly-not-a-noob) and this put him into a ragefit post-match. He even whined with horrible grammar and spelling of course, which he said was too cool slang for me to comprehend, that he as some sort of a master of intellects wouldn't be able to explain Shalespeare to me. Yes, Shalespeare. I then of course freely quoted from Hamlet, King Lear and MacBeth, but he didn't even recognise I was using Shakespearean quotes and applying it to him... Oh well. He proceeded to call me a monkey for having a couple bad stats on some ships and then I asked if he enjoyed being shot by trained monkeys. "It was four vs one!" Never mind that I was the only one targeting him as the rest was targeting a carrier. Not that he noticed with his amazing situational awareness. Ah the butthurt. Such enjoyment. So was the report of improper behaviour.

One might suggest that convenient anecdotal evidence supports fearmongering agendas? :)

Subs still seem to be in the testing phase, what with them only being available on loan. Could be they haven't implemented or even decided on the scoring system yet as subs aren't fully there yet. EDIT: says on mission screen -45 for friendly sub loss, +30 for enemy sub killed. Subs are usualy low damage dealers given the torps are pretty easy to dodge unless the sub captain knows what he's doing and can make a BB waste repairs while still being in line of sight to ping afterwards (I've done a few good rounds, but lining up in time to get a ping on target and not have your curved torps interrupted by land or simply take too long to target as they go for a lead on target position can be a lot trickier than simply moving a bit onwards and firing sideways with a DD). They shouldn't be worth too much, but yeah, at least something? Same for exp, seems they do little, then again, it's pretty easy to do massive damage on them in one attack.

Everything can be missed with a proper Gneisenau salvo.

Stat shaming is more about a forum tactic of trying to shut someone's opinion down by simply pointing at their statistics. Though I think it's been expanded to even pointing out one might need some training at times. There's an overreaction here since if stats are properly mentioned to highlight how someone doesn't understand a specific gameplay element or unit, then that's IMO in the interest of a healthy discussion. Just as long as it is done constructively to teach, rather than to berate. Problem of course is that many people on the receiving end aren't capable of discerning the difference or handling critique, whereas those on the other side are often weary of talking to people who don't get things, but are adament they do get it. It's a shame, but it's easier for mods to just ban the practice all together to keep personal attacks at a minimum, as even properly used stat analysis can lead to shaming and mocking off that person by others. Lately I try to look at people's stats to evaluate their capacity level, in order to see how to approach that person in discussion, without outright mentioning their stats (unless they try to abuse my stats without checking, while theirs are much worse... That's an open invitation for hunting season). I used to have 64% WR, but it's been sliding while being too stubbornly aggressive and going into overextensions for fun reason (attempting secondary battles for one). :)

You mean like Dutch cruisers that take more skill than people gave credit in advance, because "aircraft panic" even if any ship with torps and stronger guns is easier to carry with? I can understand disappointment that a line is in some way weaker than needed in gun gameplay, just because of gimmicks. Otoh some are just insane in the other direction. Austin and some other spammers for instance can do insane gun damage or fire damage. May I presume these pan-Asian cruisers have pretty weak armour though so they're a sort of glass cannons?

So who knew subs can be so profitable? 11K captain XP for a free premium day. Not bad. Getting the hang of these butt torps (butt torped the enemy sub and the DD in pursuit). Would have damaged the CV, but, you know... Invulnerable to pings and all.

A loss, but tried to carry, as a sub. Deliberately emerged to kill the DD throwing depth charges at me with my secondary. :) Survived with around 500 hp.