Figment

[1] I don't think you understand the problem very well: it can't really be 'fixed' without hurting the people who do this by accident more. You can come up with LOADS of fixes for this that would remove border hugging completely. But at the same time you would create a dozen or more of new problems instead for players who find themselves accidentally or even completely unwanted at the edge of the map. Given how negligible and situational the advantage is, at most you can put in a speed dampener on the turn (decelleration effect), which in itself could be abused too to dodge torps. Anything else will hurt the incompetent and the by-the-game-mechanics-handicapped players far more. Of course it can situationally provide an advantage. But that doesn't mean it's as easy to fix as you think. "Fixing" a border hugging issue by creating a "border death zone" issue isn't fixing the issue at all! It's replacing one issue with another and the latter is far more destructive to gameplay! [2] Actually it is. They proclaim they're hard to hit and thus get an improved chance of winning an encounter or not taking damage, thereby increasing the capacity of the opponents team to avoid damage, thus increasing their chances to win the match. It's indirect, but it's there. But honestly, this is about controlling the terms of combat and determining the terrain at which it is fought.

I've got a bigger issue with the smaller numbers making certain classes that are too situational uncompetitive. A 4.5km torp range on Farragut for instance doesn't work around a lot of cruisers that are free to focus fire and control the locations of combat.

Depends, a Farragut or Mahan is at a rather big disadvantage compared to other classes due to their situational usage.

The way Wargaming designed near border aircraft bombing is not handy, but there's a rather simple pathing workaround for carriers, so it's not as bad as people make it out to be, typically (like you didn't) they're just unaware of the alternatives. It's the only thing they should fix (the aircraft marker placement border should be 2.5km around the map). In general, how much influence does the border edge have on matches in game? It's completely negligent in my experience, which is why I call it a non-issue. Even then, if you're incapable of hitting one of those ships on the border, but you CHOOSE to engage them near a border anyway (yes, you choose to be there since there's only a few cap zones that have borders nearby where you might find someone border hugging - most the time you just sailed too close to the edge mirroring their movement sailing parallel to them with them reaching the border first), so that's your problem, IMO. You can also just sail away and force them to follow you: they have to get off the edge to hit you. Problem solved. Or you move to a position where you have a cleaner shot. Problem solved. Are there situations where you find a target does this because both of you are near the border? Yes, sure, but then border hugging can only ever be a reason to miss near max range and long shell travel times. Which you can opt out of by forcing them to follow you instead of fighting under their terms. Under all other conditions it can be completely controlled and accounted for by leading and predicting enemy movement, especially when you close in on a target where the travel time of the shell is just too short to actively avoid. Seriously lads, I don't need the devs to solve my problems, especially when they're of so little impact (unless you're a REALLY bad shot). If they try to "surf" sideways and angled with a battleship, what are you doing at an angle that you can't hit them from? Why have you allowed them to get in that position? Why didn't you retreat a bit and forced them to come? Why is it that your own responsibility is constantly negated because "waaaah these people are playing unfair" when they're not? The fact that you have exploiting occur AND HAS TO BE ALLOWED is because all of the penalties you might want to enforce have problems being implemented fairly. There's loads of reasons why you could be forced by the game mechanics into an edge and can't get away from it (rudder died, engine died, someone is dragging you in there, there's no room to maneouvre, your ship has a very slow rudder and/or acceleration time, etc.). You can't therefore penalise being there even for MINUTES (as repair times are often in minutes) with any kind of damage penalty. It's not like in Call of Duty or Battlefield where you can choose to turn around on the spot and invert your speed almost instantly. Any time limit to compensate for non-intended "offenses" wouldn't work, since border hugging exploiters could easily make use of a 30-50 second limit to exploit turning into and away from the border, whereas people who sailed into it with a dead engine or rudder would get a double penalty: as if being forced along a straight line at low speeds and with (partial or full) loss of control isn't enough of a penalty. You could add a condition that with module damage this timer doesn't apply, but then you've got different rulesets for different people, where you can exploit a broken module with the last stand captain skill, OR penalize a captain for having that skill and still not having much of a choice than be there for a long time. The people that are comparing this game to World of Tanks are completely void of reason though. Apparently they think a ship can be driven like a tank, where a ship needs half a mile or more to turn most the time, whereas a tank needs just meters to turn, or a dime. A dead stop as if hitting an island makes no sense and isn't even fair: there's nothing there to physically stop a turn, yet people that suggest this would have ships come to a dead stop at the slightest of angles along a completely empty waterfront, just because you scratched the border. And all this because a couple people can't do the maths of decomposing a vector, can't take accelerations into account when they lead a target and generally choose to engage a target like that, even when they know they're not an optimal target for them under those conditions. In the end, this is a general non-issue. It doesn't need to affect your chances of winning. I certainly don't let enemies exploit it. But hey. I don't seek scapegoats for my own failures. [/unpopular opinion]

Because I expect them to border hug and they expect me to use normal lead. Then use the bazilion previous topics so it becomes huge, rather than making a bazilion small topics that breach forum rules. Sidenote: I don't get why you even try to engage a fight with a border hugger if you suck at aiming for them. Force them into other positions or first get into other positions, like forcing them to go to cap zones to defend. See how much that border hugging helps them then. I mean come on, they're easy targets, they move in a straight line. Sure, they rotate. So what? Other targets do too and then you have to read in three dimensions at the same rate of turning. It only LOOKS like they turn faster, because they're pivoting on a line, but they're actually easier targets to aim for mathematically.

Dude, I don't have issues with them. If you do, which I cannot imagine, just deal with it. Doesn't seem to impact your performance at all.

And that is one reason why people with no experience shouldn't be thrown into high tier games and go through a proper tutorial phase first...

We can shoot people that don't know the search function of the forums? Here's someone who is apparently smarter than you at killing the near easiest targets in game. I don't exploit this (it happens if you run into it as you have to at times, but I don't want to be in an easy to hit position). You do realise SLOW TARGETS ALONG A STRAIGHT LINE ARE EASY TARGETS? Right?

For crying out loud, how many topics do you people need on this non-issue? EDIT: To all the negreppers: learn to use the search function! We don't need all these topics on the same thing! http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/31094-blue-line-riders/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/24336-map-border-exploiting-when-will-this-stop/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/30134-how-do-you-report-cheaters-or-bugg-users-or-what-do-i-miss/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/29822-border-hugging/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/29472-damage-for-border-abusers/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/29142-map-borders-need-rework/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/28576-suggestions-for-improvement-the-borders/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/27795-suggestion-border-surfing/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/27645-whats-the-one-thing-in-this-game-that-makes-you-rage/ [insert more on the same topic here] Virtually each containing loads of unconstructive solutions: suggestions containing incredibly harsh punishments that blanket burn everyone who gets even near the edge by accident, just because the players making the suggestions don't understand the game's time scope and just want to rid themselves of the few exploiters. Considering just how many players are virtually forced by game design to hit the edge, it's incredibly unconstructive to suggest harsh penalties for something that's so easily remedied with good aim and predicting movement (hence I find it a non-issue indeed since it barely affects me when I'm faced with one). And yes, that includes CV torp attacks which are still fairly easy to aim at border huggers, despite the turning (hint: don't allow a turn to affect their chance of hitting and they have a lot harder time with diagonal runs and torps near parallel to the border line... Try to think why that is...).

What? You expected something like not everyone using KV-3s in WoT when they could bring a PZ-IV instead? Oh dear...

Make it fire once every half hour and you can have 100% hitrates. Seriously, you fire 6 to 12 cannons with each shot having the capacity of 10K damage and you expect high accuracy?

Then they're trolling you by getting you and yours banned.

Don't think warlord gets the point about balance. In this game, EVERY unit can kill ANY other unit. Just some more easily than others or more easily (reverse ease) in very circumstantial ways. For instance, some DDs can kill BBs close up, but can't at mid range, where BBs can kill them instead). In chess, your units are more limited due to being 100% situational.

It probably has more to do with facing slightly bigger enemies on average, while stock is pretty much even to what you ended with, sometimes with worse range again.

It's quite similar to the Tirpitz I'd say, just with a bit easier citadel to hit. The main difference is the Tirpitz wants to get close to use 6km torps, I want to get close to use 7km secondaries.

Current maps are already so tactical that people draw too much because they have no idea about logistics. Besides, it would only lead to ships getting more isolated and thus more complaining about CVs and DDs.

Sounds like you need to learn about BB positioning and upgrade your secondaries range and accuracy with the modules, get the turning module too. You win: Overall Results Battles 53 Victories 34 (64%) Battles survived 24 Damage caused 2,684,588 Warships destroyed 53 Aircraft destroyed 65 Base capture 0 Base defense 62 Average Score per Battle Experience 1,281.21 Damage caused 50,652.60 Warships destroyed 1.00 Aircraft destroyed 1.23 Main battery hit ratio 23% Base capture 0.00 Base defense 1.17 Highest Score Damage caused 126,337 Warships destroyed 5 Aircraft destroyed 6

You use AP only in specific situations (broadside of a cruiser and maybe, maybe the occasional battlecruiser). HE in virtually all other situations.

A few weeks ago I made a topic on the south strategy for BBs on New Dawn. In this guide I'm not going to discuss how to approach a target, as that's fairly obvious. What I'm going to talk about is where to bring and position your carrier. Many CV users think distance equals to safety. This is only partially true. There are downsides to being far away from the enemy. If you look at the map above, draw imaginary lines to several regions on the map from each of the dots. Common sense (speed vs distance) suggests the longer the lines, the worse the position is to engage that region. So let's talk about reducing flight travel time as logistics are very important in this game. Like with BBs, you will want your CV to be able to cover the areas that need help the most. Which might be anywhere on the map. So keeping your distances short is imperative. You might want to support a single side, but, you might need to get in a position to aid both sides. Especially if you're the only carrier in the game. When there's two carriers, you may want to have both players split their attention to their own side, or concentrate attention depending on what's happening. To get air superiority, concentrating and strongly coordinating your team's fighters initially is recommended. After all, once you have air superiority, you can go for any target you like and only take good care near AA ships. Positions that are closer to the front have the added benefit that the return flight, where the chance of being chased by enemy interceptors is highest, are as short as possible. You'll encounter interceptors that are being sent after you after all. So if you can get your aircraft on board fast, they have less time to deal damage to them. Furthermore, you'll get the enemy units in AA range sooner, detering if not destroying them. Your fighters should primarily be used defensively as an IJN player. Circle friendly ships you expect will see enemy attacks. Try to panic bombers before they engage your ships. If they fly with interceptors, try to engage those interceptors within the short AA range of the friendly ships, though if you're fighting a lower tier interceptor squadron, the 5-6km range is often good enough. Especially if you're talking Clevelands or better. With IJN fighters, you can't afford to go after bombers if their interceptors escort them. First focus on taking out their fighters, otherwise you can't help your friendly units anyway as you'll just waste your fighters to rear gunners and a stronger fighter squadron. When enemy fighters follow you back to your ship, select the appropriate fighter or bomber squadron to concentrate AA upon with your carrier is quite important. You prioritise fighters your own fighters are engaged with, while you recall other aircraft back. Otherwise you prioritise the approaching aircraft that's nearest, UNTIL it reaches your inner AA range, then you switch to a squadron chasing your other bombers one: this will save you more bombers since now both fighters are less effective under AA fire and are losing aircraft. If possible, intercept the one closest to your carrier with your interceptor, keeping it in your inner AA radius, then switch to the next one once it is destroyed. You generally don't lose many aircraft doing this, because these fighters have been spending their ammo on your torp bombers, are at reduced health and generally drop quickly under combined interceptor and ship AA. Of course if an enemy bomber follows in, your ships AA should be focused there immediately as soon as it gets within AA range. When it drops its payload or lost one or two and another bomber comes within range, switch to the next bomber immediately. With some luck you'll cause panic. Especially if you can get your fighters to support. In general, recall your fighters as soon as they are low on ammo or lost a few fighters that can be replaced. Don't leave weak fighters out to fight. Does this tactic make you vulnerable to attack? Yes. It does. Both DDs and aircraft will try to reach you. DD threat you can reduce quite easily as there's a lot of islands to hide behind nearby. Of course you have to start moving on time if you get threats within say 16km that won't be stopped or deterred by you and your team.The air threat is relatively low, since they have to go all the way around an island with torp bombers to get a good angle on you, while your AA starts firing as far as the other side of the big island. But yes, always keep an eye on potential threats. Whether you get attacked in the far end of the map or closer by doesn't really matter anyway, as long as you take appropriate action. If you're closer to your allies, you're more prone to getting support. If you're near the middle, it also makes it more likely another CV will support you with fighters as the distance to cover isn't as large. USING IJN FIGHTERS So, some people say "well IJN don't have good fighters and less too, so we're screwed anyway when we face USN CV who get default air superiority". Not really. So, how do you fight two USN carriers then? Many CV players claim it can't be done. Well. It can. Below an anecdote I took my ship to the island in position 11 as a forward AA bastion to retreat to. This reduces the distance your own bombers need to fly, both to target (more sorties). It allows decent control over the center area (good for DD hunting / support), it also allows you to flee to any side if one of your flanks is failing. It allows you to support any flank under threat. Heck, it even helps you cap B near the end of the match if it's needed. The Langley in this match threw its fighters at the enemy fighters, getting double teamed by three interceptor squadrons without ever shooting down any fighters himself. The Langley lost squadron after squadron trying to attack and attack with his fighters "protecting" his bombers or keeping the fighters stalled. It got him some damage and two kills, but cost him most his aircraft. In contrast, I lost 3 fighters total and 5 bombers, one of which to a Kongo I was torping, so I lost 8 aircraft in exchange for shooting down 21 fighters and 15 bombers (and a scout plane in the last seconds of the battle). I on the other hand kept my fighters close to a BB and CA of our team on the weakest flank, where I expected enemy bombers to come, that's where those 15 bombers were shot down (6 on their way to me, 9 in defense of the BB). My bombers were initially blocked by those interceptors but I made them come back for a landing before they made any attempts at an attack. In doing so, luring the enemy fighters over my ship and shooting some down with rear gunners probably. I recalled my fighter from the BB protection, made my bomber go in a straight line while being pursuited by an enemy fighter squadron and strafed it starting from a good distance it couldn't intercept me, shot down three fighters, got it within range of my CV as the bombers were returning and I sailed towards them, then let my fighters intercept the interceptors to keep them within 2.5km of my carrier. I lost 2 fighters, they 6.

Is that because of risk mitigation? Because generally you should be able to get a good score with CVs to cover your costs. Especially when you play aggressive. goodman528, on 16 September 2015 - 12:06 PM, said: I disagree with the 2 CV matchup splitting between the flanks. I think it's much better if you both strike together, preferably taking out an enemy CV first, then pushing one flank as far as possible. For fighter usage, I think you should use your fighters to only engage enemy bombers. If you are aggressive enough with it, the enemy will be seeking to engage your fighters with his fighters because he wants to protect his bombers. Then your bombers can have free reign over the enemy, which is your real objective with your fighters. For fighter usage, I think you should use your fighters to only engage enemy bombers. If you are aggressive enough with it, the enemy will be seeking to engage your fighters with his fighters because he wants to protect his bombers. Then your bombers can have free reign over the enemy, which is your real objective with your fighters. Actually we agree for the most part. Hence why I recommended at the very least initially working together and why I'm not having my fighter join my bomber teams, but protect against enemy bombers, rather than fighters. I only pull them back when my bombers need support near my CV and to keep the enemy fighters from retreating, forcing them to stay within my AA range. Thing is, it really depends on the deck you have. In the above case, if you only have one set of fighters (and one backup squadron) like with the Zuiho, you can't afford to send them out to aggressively hunt the enemy, since you'll likely end up in a fight over your head. Do they distract? Certainly, but you might just end up giving them aerial superiority for the remainder of the match, whereas in the above case, I ended up with aerial superiority in the end. If you have a fighter setup, aggressive hunting is more of a possibility. Realise though that the above results were attained while having 8 fighters total, one squadron of 4 and still ending with a full squad and one or two held in reserve on board (!). You can't throw them away against two USN CVs without risking getting camped by them if anything goes wrong. But we are fully agreed in the sense I too think a concentrated and coordinated effort between two CVs can make a very big dent, especially if you take out the enemy CV or heaviest AA units. On top of that, creating an AA bastion with two CVs is definitely saver than alone (provided of course you don't make yourself too easy to double torp. ;)).

And exagerating is a skill too...

Yes, you would. Since those personalities don't have individual IDs. The reason it is a violation is because they don't want people to make troll accounts or accounts in which they can harass other people (TKing, racist remarks, spamming reports, etc) without this having repercursions to their actual main account. The only reason you'd support multiple accounts is because you want anonimity to do something without it affecting your main account. Whether you want peace and quiet without being recognised in game for what you state on forums or otherwise, it doesn't matter. Most people who use multiple accounts do so because they intend to abuse multiple accounts.

Having that "luck" myself usualy. Strange eh? Look. You're not the only target on that map. The carriers need that initial engagement advantage to be useful. It's your job as a team to carve a path to them. If they would be in line of sight from the start, they'd just sink very quickly and the ship's role would be void. On top of that, BBs aren't exactly in need of being a direct "counter" to CVs, because that's not their primary role. Being threatened by CVs is a good thing.

The BB needs far less time to deal the same damage as that carrier. Survival time is not as relevant as it can potentialy kill targets far quicker.

Baltimore has BB healing ability I think.