Figment

"Oh no, the enemy is shooting at me!" I've heard weird complaints...

It's nice that you all pretend the BBs are on the other side of the map and not at all in a position to pincer the CV for instance or have had so much help from AA cruisers that at this point they're easily capable of outperforming the CV. If you're only going to theorycraft with ideal situations for carriers, yeah, then carriers sound really OP. All in all, I hear mediocre players giving their views. Maybe I'm just better with BBs, because I can think of many scenarios in which that CV is going to be cornered and killed without so much of a chance if this is the final ship in game. Even so, I probably would ignore it with two BBs and simply opt for a cap. Reason being? That CV will only get ONE, maybe TWO chances to attack both BBs if they try to cap, especially if it tried to flee and has long flight times. There's no reason you should lose unless you put yourself in a losing position as the BB.

That's not true. It MIGHT win depending on BB (player) dodging skills, type of BBs and type of CVs, distance left, amount of aircraft left, etc.

Had it one match where I fired two salvos of HE at a Tenryu and Kuma. Both died in one shell hit. That was several patches ago btw. So not really new.

Statements like this make me feel you don't quite understand this is a team game and a situational advantage game. Therefore it isn't always your job nor your "right" to be at an advantage. If you had clean line of sight and visible within 16km or closer, they'd be at your mercy instead. It's situational balance, not balanced around every situation, so no, 1 on 1, it's not "balanced" in the sense that you can just pitch any unit against another. Do you think a Farragut will be happy facing two Clevelands at the end of the match?

Those complaining about the last carrier to kill should consider that there is the option to cap. Especially for destroyers. You've been given this way to avoid a fruitless chase and force a victory. Just use it.

The US DDs should primarily be judged on their cannons, not their torps. Certainly not with the poor state fog is in. However, if you get in proper strike range with a Farragut or Mahan, the torps are very lethal. You just have less than the Nicholas, but the spreads are a bit tighter. Unlike the Nicholas though, you can't really afford missing a salvo. The range and curved fire can be a big asset in the right circumstances though.

Okaaaaaay... Now read what I wrote again and use that thing between your ears. No... no... get those fingers out of your nose. I didn't mean... Eurgh...

Circumstantial, though. Sometimes you have to brawl, sometimes you have to make a run for it and snipe. Really no particular thing a BB has to do as dogma.

Borders aren't natural period, but other solutions are worse for the average user. But what I don't get is why you think I'm defending border hug exploiting. I'm defending the border concept. Think about it for a bit.

Even an Albany can carry.

But that would require people to understand the different forum icons next to each thread. :|

What's painful is you still not understanding the point that's been made after a rather long post explaining it to you after you tried to accuse me of being an exploiter through insinuation of a hidden agenda. Even making strawmen about who I'm qualifying as disrespectful, irresponsible and uncaring: namely not "everyone that finds it a problem" as you claim I said, but "people who makes stupid proposals that hurt other people more than it hurts exploiters and affects everyone else's gameplay just to get rid of a minor personal pet peeve nuisance" - which is far more nuanced than you are seemingly capable of understanding or willing to understand. I'm being very specific when I say things like that, don't ever try to make it into blanket statements. All I get from this and previous posts from you is that when you debate, you're more inclined to try and commit character murder, than actually respond to any argumentation made by other people. In your rant about my personality and posting style, you've not addressed a single issue that I brought up, instead, you just called it "ranting". (Btw your rant shows it clearly bugs you when I disagree. It also bugs you I state my opinion when it's got a negative tone). It also bugs you that you might end up ignored, considering you try to make it extremely obvious you're not worried about getting on my ignore list. But you again fail to understand what getting on my ignore lists means: you read it as a threat to your person. No Cuddly, it's not a threat at all. It's simply tuning out the random uninteresting noise from the forums for me, so in my personal interest: I couldn't care less how it affects you. Maybe that ego-centric world view of yours where people do things just to affect you should be adapted a bit. What did you call it again? Megalomania? See, I'm just not going to bother with it, so I'm warning you that if you want to be heard and talk to me, THEN you should fix your manner of addressing my points. Otherwise do us both a favour and don't talk to me, otherwise I'll just tune you out and you ramble whatever the hell you want. Address the points I've made about the design solutions proposed, or don't expect the courtesy of spending my time on a reply to you again. And no, it's pretty clear the amount of thought put into these... "solutions" is generally speaking so slim, it's something people throw up in a state of frustration, rather than after an objective analysis of both problem, solution and consequences. There's so many oversights in each of these propositions, that the consequences are typically huge. I've only seen about three people propose solutions while keeping in mind the innocent who might suffer from it. Most these solutions aren't perfect, but at least one might say those people thought about it for a few seconds longer than "ON BORDER? JUST DEAL DAMAGE TO THE @#@$$^$*#(#( LOL! / THROW THOSE @&$(#$#( OUT!" type of solutions that have been proposed time and time again. People like that aren't reasonable. People who think about things a bit longer and think of the consequences of the changes they propose in a far wider perspective than just the particular scenario that would be fixed are actually reasonable. But until then I've been one of the few people to actually point out the people hell-bent on getting this 'fixed' are in a state of revenge thinking, rather than a state of constructive critique.

Why? You've got way more ability to carry if your opposition is worse.

I'd rather we'd encourage people to learn foreign language to communicate... and form a single community. Tbh. Localisation forums tend to die over time anyway due to lacking content, double content and being rather... well... limited.

Translation: he doesn't play BBs, just cruisers and destroyers.

There's no such thing coming as the Royal Navy. The Greek Navy. That is what we're all waiting for. *Try the search function*

The long answer is: people suck. The short answer is: people.

And class. Basically, I'd get rid of the overall averages and substitute these on a per class basis, with an average tier modifier.

I don't see why they would show anything but the base exp in the first place. Random multipliers don't actually indicate anything about performance (and exp itself already hardly does scale proper with improved performance anyway, particularly with regards to support actions that can't be quantified easily).

Well a sanctioned bot as an ally would be preferable to an actual third party bot and to an AFK player. However, it should indeed not discourage "leaving battle", quite the contrary. IF there would be such a thing, it would have to COST exp AND silver to keep it running. Say it would COST 75 exp and 15.000 silver per minute it is active (and yes, potentially resulting in a netto negative exp of -1500 exp). It should also make your ship change colour (to yellow or so). Possibly have long term effects too, if you for example often leave matches before it ends and continue playing another unit.

Quite probably a particular issue I probably haven't mentioned yet a few hundred times over since you've clearly been quite capable of completely missing it. One of these days you might want to try reading if you want to find out about the opinion and reasons of others. But of course, then you can't ignore it completely and substitute it with insinuations and strawmen, can you? EDIT: Alright. Just for you, cause you're one of those "special" people that needs extra sarcasm because the common sense obvious isn't clear enough for them. The "fixes" demanded or "suggested" by people cause huge amounts of destructive gameplay for OTHER people than border huggers, while these fixes may deter border hugging as an exploit, they would in practice end up affecting NOT the people who would currently deliberately run into the map border. Instead, it would constantly affect all those people who accidentally run into the map border. Those people would be hurt each battle because of the witch hunting of a minor nuisance that hardly affects gameplay, by a few people with ludicrous proposals and typically little understanding of the consequences of what they just put forth as an idea. There are people who suggest "removing exploiters from the match". Result? Enemy team is a man down, thus EVERYONE ELSE ON THAT TEAM suffers more than the so-called "exploiter", who just starts a new game. So imagine that would be my team. I suddenly lose my flank cover. Now MY gameplay would be affected because YOU are too incompetent to lead a target and instead of fighting harder or smarter, you go the easy route and have that person removed? Worse. That person may not even have been exploiting, because the game mechanics very frequently "create" exploiters through combinations of systems like slow ruddershift (battleships can drag along an edge a long while before being able to break free) and broken modules that make you drag along or can make you sit still on an edge as is. Not to mention the scenario of hitting an island under a bad angle while on the edge of the map. The damage tickers some people have suggested would result in anyone with poor situational awareness being affected negatively, not just border huggers (which is you probably, Cuddly, you don't even have the attentionspan to read a post that already answered your question over and over and over after all). Then there's people who suggested replacing the borderline with a free movement zone, which forces people to turn or take damage / suddenly die if they don't turn back in time (CoD style), who completely negate the existance of broken rudders. Then there's the people who suggested a complete stop, who don't seem to understand the consequences of that to themselves and everyone else if they're unable to turn away from an edge. Let alone the effect on the size of the practical playing field. Let alone the frequency with which people would come to a complete halt. I find these utterly uncaring, disrespectful, unresponsible attitudes towards design and your fellow players. Worse even than exploiting: it bothers you now and then, so let's just remove it and who cares about the collatoral damage. Eh? All because people like YOU, Cuddly, are too shortsighted to think of the consequences of your proposals and not interested in providing a good solution, you're just interested in a "quick-fix" from a minor nuisance that everybody can deal with with a very tiny bit of leading practice, behavioral observation and resulting anticipation skills. So why do I care? Because I'm one of the few people who realises that there are consequences to actions taken that adversely affect everyone to such a degree that it pales in comparison to the issue presented. I care for the people you're trying to hurt and the effect on my chances to win certain battles (both positive and negative: I don't want to win because the game blew up a ship for me by some random PvE-damage, nor do I want players on my team damaged by that in a pure PvP game). And no, I don't like it when a bunch of vocal whiners try to change something that doesn't need changing, certainly not if they want to change it for the worse. See torpedo threads too. On top of that I am capable of mitigating the issue with extreme ease, therefore not seeing the proposed problem as more than a nuisance. But since people keep hammering this so fervently without ever actually thinking about it, SOMEONE has to be the voice of reason. Even if that voice is an unpopular opinion because these people are frustrated with a perceived issue they can easily fix themselves by practicing and changing their own playstyle and movement patterns. And if you don't read this Cuddly, or try to pin a hidden agenda on me again as you tried to set me up for last message, you're not worth the trouble. You'll just end up on my ignore.

Yes, but those are individual issues. The air aim drops next to the border is a CV interface issue and just one of many. The CV gameplay has received the least attention during CBT and OBT and IMO is far from ready. It seems the UI is considered 'done', even if it's screaming "improve me!". Particularly the CV map mode is full of bugs and oversights as more attention is given to balancing surface vessel gameplay: When I play a CV and enter big map mode, I can't use the minimap nor the big map to click proper: If I press ctrl on the big map, the cursor becomes invisible (still there, but can't see it, so can't know where I click and the small map isn't interactive in big map mode. Reported this issue in 0.3.0, but it hasn't been fixed yet. The map and minimap are too small to see your (enemy's) aircraft when they are outside of the border. I've proposed a solution for that here:http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/29944-minimap-redesign-for-vanilla-client-not-just-mod-packs/page__p__532793#entry532793 You can't place markers with ground parts that expand over the edge of the map until you place them and then move them, or attack from a limited amount of angles, or requires you to first have your aircraft fly out of the map borders to create a work around. Tedious, but worse: encourages border hugging exploiting as it often gives AAA more time to shoot air down while CVs struggle to get the right angle, after which indeed torps often miss if the CV player makes a bad choice. The arrow on the edge of the torpedo circle is easy to grab and move, but the center of the circle is hard to move due to the part you need to grab being on a 3D-pin that sticks out in various directions over the map. When you grab it, there's no 'shadow' on the ground that shows you the effect of the change on the circle and attack route as a whole, it just shows you the new center marker location. More or less. SHIFT is assigned to switching between third person and map mode, yet is also used to place additional markers in map mode with SHIFT + Left Mouse. And of course pressing SHIFT 5x brings up a pop-up about turning on "sticky keys" or whatever it's called in English. SHIFT is ALSO used for adding more units to your selection of aircraft currently selected... As if there wern't enough buttons assigned to it. Scrolling with the mouse button can be used to zoom in and out on the overview map, but the amount of zoom-out is a bit too small for proper management and switching between the big map and small map is thus made very annoying. When you try to assign targets through the big map, the adjustment controls are often so large, you can't click where you actually want them to go without having to give a rather wild abort order that causes the aircraft to fly off course). You can't auto-attack multiple aircraft in a row anymore. One of the few decent commands for fighters creates a lot of unneeded micromanagement and I personally think it makes CV players neglect their fighters even more. Waypoints of aircraft don't automatically jump to the start of a circle when you add an attack line that overshoots the last movement waypoint, making aircraft circle needlessly as it's often very hard to see (same colour on background colour). Too little or 'wrong' information in the big map mode about enemy players (can't tell type of ship nor health which you can by zooming in a bit, instead you get player names, which is relatively irrelevant information). SHIFT, ALT and SHIFT + ALT are often tedious pathing tools (much like discussed before), but these options aren't available without using these keys. This makes it more likely that players are unaware of the possibility. A good UI-designer would have added buttons to manage waypoints. When a player is in map mode a lot (CV only), warnings of current fire and flooding are often underwhelming when new ones start shortly after others have been repaired. IMO anyway. Can't easily cancel or change the order of launch of aircraft (you used to be able to, but they changed it and made it harder if it can be done at all cause I can't figure it out right now... What with the invisible cursor).

Not playing divisions doesn't lower your winrate to 4% under average as most players play alone most of the time. Divisions only have limited impact on most player's winrates and even divisions don't guarantee improved chances, since two bad players in a division can actually worsen the winrate. The effect of divisions is directly related to the skill of the players in said divisions, so even if someone divisions, the net effect will be based on their personal quality, not on the fact of being in a division.

Regarding location of being hit: I think I've seen instakills with torpedoes mostly when they came head on. Anyone know if that's observation bias?