Figment

It's understandable enough, it's just that you quote a message with Turkish translation and then we have to go back to a post to figure out what it said, because Turkish is Greek to most of us (rivalry pun intended). ;) Then again I had Greek lessons in high school...

You didn’t wait for the second animation, did you? :p (Attacks shown are against pawn, knight, bishop, tower golem, queen and king). Also, pawns fight dirty.

I strongly disagree. The earlier you score points, the more decisive they tend to be since it sets up the stage for all next encounters. The more effective you are early game, the more hampered the enemy is in mid and late game. If both sides score equally throughout, then every subsequent battle remains equally meaningful as early engagements. But what if you turn the tide by killing 4 enemies late game while 3 ships down and tilt the score? Is the one tilting the score more important than the rest of the team effort that accrued points by caps and kills to get that final end result? You can't know if they didn't make decisive strikes on cruisers in between, even from a distance. For example, hitting a cruiser that was about to kill a DD or cruiser that would go on to cap a zone, get kills, etc. Why don't you try coming up with a formula that recognises saves of allied ships? Oh wait. That'd be impossible. "I had a brainfart, do my work and I'll take credit". Maybe you first think a bit more about this.

Chess boardgames have been way ahead of your pc masterrace argument. But if we're on that subject.

Think I got back to playing half way in v0.8, so yeah missed that info. :) Can't say I take a lot of time to read patch notes lately though.

Ah missed that, so it's basically always an overpen now.

You know, it's really weird reading for the rest of us when you quote and leave a Turkish translation where it used to be English (or whatever). I take it you heard of overpenetration? The hulls of DDs are so weak, your overmatching Kremlin-AP shells will enter on one side of a DD and exit near harmlessly on the other side of the ship (with some luck killing a module or so), but not exploding within as the fuse of the shell (British AP has a much shorter fuse) is set for ships that are wider than DDs. Thus your AP shells would deal only minor hull damage (aka overpenetration). If you fired two volleys of broadside you had the time to switch to HE for your second salvo. You did not, thus risking overpenetrations again. AP shells can deal damage to a DD, but you'd pretty much have to fire along the longitudinal axis of the ship and you'll still only deal 5-12K if you're lucky and you actually hit the majority of shells (or have a British BB, or fire at very specific DDs (new German DD line and some French DDs iirc)). Had you fired HE and hit that many shells, that DD would have been virtually gone if not gone and if not, your secondaries could probably have finished it. Now let's look at the DD side of things. As for just with their torpedoes... It's not the only way. Burning down BBs can be done with several gunboat DDs through sheer volume of fire from relative distance or safety, but that'd take a number of fires + damage per shell. Friesland, Marceau, Harugumo, Kitakaze, Klèber and some others are capable of putting out a devastating non-stop barrage, but their problem is often accuracy of mortar like long travel time fire, particularly at distances over 10km and not all shots producing damage. They kind of rely on setting multiple fires in order to deal a lot of damage to BBs. You said the Haru only started one fire, did it use HE only or did it switch to AP? If so with captain skills enhancing pen (+25%) and AP damage (+5%) might explain some of the speed of damaging, but I very much doubt it's the full story. Something tells me you were so focused on that single ship in CQB and dodging torpedoes that you lost track of time and may have missed you opening up your side to another (covert) enemy, getting hit in the broadside, upper structure or ends, somewhere out of your view while aiming. The Kremlin like most Russian BBs can be really squishy if hit directly on the side. With the Haru spamming you like mad, you might have overlooked other ships also landing shells. So how certain are you that nobody else fired as well? If you rewatch the match you can see whether that which you experienced in the heat of the fight stands up to a post-battle analysis. It'd help if you'd share the file for the fight in question.

Good a player you are, you really don't have any semblance of empathic skills with regards to the less gifted amongst us. They are playing the game and sometimes to the best of their limited abilities, just not like you would like them to. It doesn't ruin the game FOR THEM. From THEIR PERSPECTIVE it's fine. That's actually already enough justification. From the game's perspective there's players (even if they're botlike they're targets, which are needed to play the game) and potentially paying players. Are tehy also a potential source of irritation and annoyance? Sure. No, sadly I can't help that you're dense enough to think a strawman helps you in any way though. If it takes 5 minutes it means they took evasive action. But thanks for admitting you lack the capacity to recognise bad players for being just bad unintentionally. Enemy Alaska may just think "People said I have to point my nose at the enemy or I die crap crap crap". And does the same thing next match. Why doesn't this work!!?? Seriously... I've encountered those post game... Some people just shoot all the time not realising the value of concealment. Some players only look at their zoomed out state and are oblivious to incoming fire. :/ Massive lack of situational awareness and lack of capacity to multitask happens. I can also imagine someone loading up a match, hitting W during the load, getting distracted by something IRL (kid fell, that sort of thing) and by the time they're back they're dead. You named a couple that are clear AFK situations. And a Benson dieing to CV spotting isn't exactly If X in hypothetical scenario Y. What if B in scenario C? I care about XP more than about resources. Premium ships don't generate tech tree grind XP for me at all (who pays for free exp conversion at this exchange rate?). Silver is not XP, but also not as cheap to get by for a lot of people as you make it seem. Yes, it is boring, to you. To them? You are unwilling and probably unable to look at why they are playing and what constitutes fun for them. You're dehumanizing them to make their right to participation irrelevant as it doesn't suit you. Yes it's not a challenge, I fully agree. Yes, it's not fun to lose allies for no reason or to have non-committed people in your match. But I've also had it where I had to go afk for half a minute, because my kid decided to do something silly instead of finishing her yoghurt. I apologised in game for it upon my return and was yelled at by two people who think this game is for pro's only (note that it didn't even impact the game or my performance, my DD ran aground, but that's it, I still ended up killing two ships, despite being half health after being afk and apologising. Why? Because running aground due to going afk was enough reason for that ally to damage my ship with two volleys of cruiser HE! According to him, I should have let my kid fall to the ground, OR not play at all, because it was HIS match, not mine. Note, he broadsided with his pro ally in front of a Kurfurst after taking two torps while his hydro was on, all the while typeheroing about how I was being a detriment to the team for going afk for 30s. People load slower, ffs. He doesn't realise he doesn't pay for my game, determine my actions or otherwise have any right to judge. Being an arse doesn't stop people from being prejudiced and judgmental though. That's not what you said earlier when you used the word "should". I agree that actual botting and being afk all match and often should be punished more severely and should be better to detect. I would also not mind people getting penalized with temporary mode bans for ending last with no input in matches frequently. But ship content should IMO always be unrestricted by anything but grind, available to all players simply to ensure a potentially equal playing level. I don't like that certain overperforming/overused ships are removed, rather than balanced. There are reasons such ships are removed, but to give an unit advantage for people who got it in time is not in the spirit of fair play.

Does it ruin their game? So does it ruin the game, just because it's not what you play the game for? You're not the only user. :/ Okay, so what you're saying is you can't differentiate bad players from deliberate yolo-grinders or heavily exagerating the numbers to make it seem worse than it is? Not my experience to see one per match at all. If that's your definition of yoloing I see those once every 20 ranked matches, if that. :/ I see a lot of DDs running into radar and hydro due to overenthusiasm and lack of testing out the waters, but I don't dub that yoloing for grind. Cruisers get completely knackered due to not angling for the crossfire often or being overmatched or focused while attempting to reach an island for cover, but that too isn't purposeful, just bad positioning and likely not knowing what else to do. Early deaths happen a lot, but to attribute a resource grind motivation to that given the amount of overkill units in game would be stretching it. Just look at how many one trick ponies are out there. The only ones trying something creative in their attack patterns tend to be the DDs. Most people do what they always do and if they never learned to dodge they'll risk just suiciding. Hanlon's razor applies here afaic: "Never attribute to bad intentions, such as malice and self-interest, that which is adequately explained by other causes, such as stupidity, ignorance, carelessness, or incompetence.” Not exactly the same reward, it means a very low exp gain. But given that they - as far as my experience goes - don't get encountered as often as you try to make this seem, and even if they were they'd be distributed on both sides equally so they don't affect your average results, it's pretty much a non-issue. I think you're in that group that can't imagine anymore just how bad the game for poor and 'unlucky' players (who make non-obvious mistakes to them) can be. That said, IMO rewards in ranked should scale to how well one did during the entire season. Top earners getting a slight bit bigger reward, but I'd keep the power creep low and not have the rewards and chance of progression be so low that participation isn't encouraged as that would drain the population for matches and thus increase the amount of downtime. These modes are meant to be fun for all, not just the most competitive players. I don't agree with the current design and largely agree with some changes you propose, but for different reasons. I completely disagree with your malice/abuse analysis in terms of how widespread it is.

Eh, when they make comments to that effect in response to questions why they're sailing in the opposite direction of the objective from start... Big difference though? I don't pretend there's a lack of rights to resources. That's possible as a method of grind, but should we care enough about those few individuals to deny other people a chance at steel ships too? If you want to burn this specific form of grinding, there are ways to deal with that. Like if average time in battle is too short on average to be realistic for someone trying, adding time-outs for the mode. And how often do you encounter these anyway? I hardly think it's a big deal, one hardly encounters AFK players or yolo'ers. Some DDs will lose the initial engagement (often due to lack of support where the opposite team did move up as a group), some cruisers will get dev struck, but most times people just play (poorly).. A bigger detrimental issue in my experience seems to be people either with a "brilliant plan" that ends up with them sitting circled on one cap with the entire team from the start of the match, or a general lack of coordination and cooperation. Do we need to punish everyone for this specific form of system abuse, or simply correct the system? Hence it seems we're agreed, but some people don't want any kind of reward to be in it for people who either don't have the time to rank out or don't have the skill to rank out. Star saving (or losing) among some other design elements should not exist as it provides incentives for selfish, non-objective play. The problem is that WG tried to compromise between those who want ranked to be for elites and those who want to grind to the top rank for the highest rewards, without it being a competition based on end results of the competition, but instead basically the amount of time required to play to get to the end. But that's been WG's vision for a succesful game mode since WoT, where success is defined by average player time in game, burning resources and making money. It's never been Wargaming's primary goal to make their games into an e-sport competition where you work your way up the skill leagues and keep people play their own skill levels. There's simply not enough guaranteeable in-game population for this anyway. You're never going to completely stop yolo'ing as it's the way some people simply play, due to skill or due to living without any regard to what's in the benefit of the team (and thus ultimately oneself). IMO the game could be a lot teamwork friendlier, but hey. :/ I'm not missing the point, it's been explicitly suggested by some people in this thread that steel acquisition is the reason for these people to play this mode, but my response there was to some people subsequently suggesting that steel ships aren't supposed to be earned by the "lesser" players and should be reserved for the elite who know what to do with them.

I'm glad you havn't made strawman stereotypes of people to project your grievances and own sense of entitlement with regards to who should have access to pixel ships on and why they should want them. Define minimal effort. I don't think the picture you've got in your mind is anywhere near accurate of how efficient these people are at grinding steel. ie. not. If they yolo every match, they likely won't win much. They might get there at the end of the week, but that means they won't be in randoms while you're long done with ranking out, so your experience there should improve in the meantime. Are they yoloing for steel, or are they just that bad? So far I've seen mostly the exact same behaviour as people have in randoms, just that a bad player sticks out worse because their mistakes are always somewhere within sight of you due to the smaller map and because the impact of losing them is more significantly felt as they're a larger percentage of the team. Otherwise, I hardly see anything worse than early star saving (where damage farming often is done by otherwise good players with a mod to show them win probability as well who start "mitigation" from the start of the match). Or they should have the tool to be able to practice and get good with it when it has a specific gameplay... I really don't care if they practice in a steel ship or a coal ship or a premium, they'll likely perform bad anyway and they'll be in any tier game anyway. What you define as "should" is not how the game is designed. There is no link between skill and acquisition of units and never has been. There's only a link between amount of grind and acquisition of any unit. Steel acquisition is not linked to skill either. At most you could argue that you are more effective at grinding steel missions, so you can maybe get more ships in the same time span, but it has never been limited to you and you should really get over that entitlement chip on your shoulder. Why can't you be content with having more steel ships due to being a more effective grinder? Why the jealousy?

Any reason they should not get steel ships then? It's just grind-speed we're talking about here. It'd be for good and bad clan wars players alike otherwise, we're not talking about exclusivity. Ranked as is, is not designed to be exclusive either, given it's a matter of ranking out speed rather than pure skill (and sure, some people won't progress, but most will eventually as they will eventually end up fighting a group of players of similarly bad skill in ranked). Ranked as is can at most be used to create an efficiency list of players: who is done in the fewest games and with the most effective scores? Beyond that it's just an alternative randoms game mode for smaller amounts of players at a time, giving it a little bit different gameplay dynamic than randoms. Ranked bronze/silver/gold access would have to get an overhaul based on win rates in randoms (X% of top performing players over the previous month or so) if you want this to change, but that could cut up the playerbase in a way that could not guarantee quick matchmaking if they play at different hours or the pop has dwindled too far. Remember that good players who play in Clan Wars just get these ships first, as has always been the case, as they have additional steel incomes. Good players who are without clan were severely disadvantaged in the steel grind though (and still are in contrast to people playing Clan Wars). I'm a slightly above average player without a clan and I haven't got enough steel to buy even a single ship. What matters is how often you play, as it always has. As such, bad players are going to be in every tier, whether in steel, coal, premium or tech tree units. What ship they're in doesn't matter one bit, because they will get outplayed. Trying to restrict ships in some fashion is just senseless elitist entitlement. - senseless because it's never been just for good (clan wars) players (daily missions provide a minor amount of steel as well, as do certain other event game modes and randoms missions) - elitist entitlement because some people think it's fine that others can't get something, even if they have to grind WAAAY longer for it due to being bad and thus ultimately put way more time and effort in it since they can't fart through these steel attaining missions as well as good (clanned) players can. I know there are those who like to look down on other people with a worse grasp of the game, but ffs people, grow a pair and stop whining that "the plebs" are in this game too and get similar toys to you (slower)! Instead of seeing it as your personal game and playground where others have not earned the rights to play with or against you, accept the reality that this game is designed for everyone, thus everyone is eligible to play the game and ultimately can get the ships of their choice. Wargaming makes free to play games with a natural grind progression to the top where progression (except for speed) has NEVER been based on or limited to skill. So why in the world would anyone be annoyed by people getting steel ships - that can still easily be killed by other units playing well regardless of the stalinium ship hulls involved - after probably many months to years of grind, where you get those things way faster and thus more of them?

Close enough, they're right next to each other. :P So I took the detour, one can do this when one gets Air Strike ability!

Sure it will! *Quietly sails up the Thames to Chatham* Aaaaah discount shopping makes a Dutchman happy. :)

Now that we're on the topic... What's in store for collectable Dutch naval flags? Obviously we'll get the national flag, which doubles as land/naval war flag. This is also the Royal Navy flag since 1937. But what else? Oorlogswimpel (1934-present) (vane of war) For the fancy warmonger that doesn't want to be associated with civilians too much. Dubbele Geus/Prinsengeus (1931-present) Used by anchored active service ships or special events. Based on the flag used by de Watergeuzen during the 80 years war against the Spanish. Dubbele prinsengeus Of course we need a Prinsengeus variant as well to commemorate the capture of Den Briel. For the fancy, historical rebel. Prinsenvlag (16th century naval flag): Unfortunately this is somewhat unlikely a flag to get, since although the orange was areference to the royal family (their supporters called Orangists for a reason) was hijacked by the fascist NSB party and has since been largely associated with fascism and Groot-Neerlandisme (annexing Belgium and possibly Luxemburg while at it). Due to political correctness, I don't think we should get a VOC version of the Prinsenvlag either, given their colonial warcrimes. Of course, there's the red VOC variant too. Double or Triple prinsenvlag: This one is high on my to get list. Seriously. This can be in the Republican red as well. :) What say ye?

Well, we’ve already had plenty of barrels, shell size ejaculation and penetration discussions on these forums...

There's a better flag for that actually. There's a flag for a ... flagofficer (high ranked officer on board).

Only if we can trigger the ship's self-destruct sequence.

Well they'll be nerfed anyway since we'll soon be sending stealthy Dutch ships to your British ports (and bombers at your smokescreens) to set your ships on fire. AAAANVALLÛÛÛÛÛH!

Spices things up and all. :)

They'll have to get used to this being a Dutch forum.

That's true, could indeed be quite interesting for our Pan-Asian and Commonwealth players too. That could indeed be a good choice as well. Let's see if I can still add it to the poll. :) EDIT: Done! :) Btw, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Wilton-Feyenoord would be used for a dockyard event.

Just so you know, I have no desire to participate in a feature creating artificial scarcity to play out players against one another in order to drain them from resources, hoping it’ll stimulate sales somehow. This is the kind of overdevelopment that occurs when you’re both out of ideas to benefit players and just look for something that is different AND you’ve reached if not crossed an ethical line. You say there is no risk involved. I don’t think you understand risk.

Es ist ein Fan von der Holland DD. ;)

Oh, ich habe auch das neue Schiffshorn gefunden.