Figment

Jack, before you say one more word, read back every post I wrote and look for CV and aircraft mentionings... Because your concerns been dealt with. Stupid assumption by the way that they would move away immediately. You simply can't do that, literally can't do that. Your solutions are horrible because they don't take into account other scenarios.

What? Dampening speed (slow decelleration when pushing into the border) would punish those who keep sailing into it on purpose by reducing their speed. While it doesn't punish those who simply ran into it by accident. Planes should be able to fly outside of the border, just not so far they can get out of full AA range and not so far they get off the mini map. But that's a CV specific issue. A complete removal is impossible as long as you have non-(is)land borders, it would just be ridiculous and detrimental to dynamic gameplay, which is rather static as is.

I would have a dampening effect that reduces forward velocity vector speed over time, thereby reducing the sideways speed as well.

Rare doesn't make it irrelevant. Is it a crime punishable by death, even if it's beyond your control? Because that's what you suggest. And no, sailing reverse into enemies is not always an alternative option. Certainly not with a broken rudder that can last up to two minutes. My question is why do you assume I am there? The point is, it's a part of the game space, so it's possible. Are we designing a fair and good solution or are we designing a blanket punishment to just randomly screw you over? Why are you dead set on basically reducing the actual map size and punishing bad navigators who already get punished by... being bad? Because that's what you're doing?

Kenliero, a scenario: So your rudder is out, you hit the border and get stuck in the corner between two border edges at 0 speed. This should be punished beyond already being a really easy target?

Do not mock 8 bit graphics!

1. Often, not always. My point is therefore completely correct as the people who want punishments assume it's deliberate abuse, always and therefore create solutions that punish abuse, always, without at all considering the circumstances. The people who wish to punish therefore assume deliberate usage, which is not true in all cases and therefore a blanket punishment is a bad "solution", next to it being no solution at all anyway because people would still run into borders and you end up punishing just those that don't do it on purpose... 2. Everything you said here is absolute and complete nonsense, hardly know where to start to correct you. :/ If you understand the maths, you'll miss less. People who understand the maths and have insight into the change in dV/dt in relation to dθ/dt and subsequently project that change in speed along the border axis. They simply can NEVER be the ones who miss as much as you claim because they actually understand what's going on! It's simply ludicrous to suggest people who know gonio maths who are worse off than people who don't! The ones who miss most are those that don't understand how to cope with angles and vector decomposition, i.e. the ones who don't understand how the change in speed relates to angle and over time. Furthermore, the maths are never wrong, because the maths simply follow from the action(s) taken. The interpretation of the viewer acceleration however, is prone to be wrong, mostly because they have no insight in what's going on and they can't relate a change in angle to a change in speed, certainly not integrate ∫a x ds = ∫ V x dV for a turn that influences a vector, for which some basic intuitive insight into the maths suffices. 3. Situational awareness is indeed an issue, but it's more than that since there's no clear warning you're going to hit a border either. Punishing people to get to a dead stop doesn't work either, because those who suddenly come to a dead stop are simply sitting ducks and can hardly get out of that situation as the reverse acceleration is so slow you'd die anyway. That's rather unfair I would say. It'd open it up to abuse from the ones targeting them: things like: just drive them with torps into a border and they'll be sitting ducks afterwards, which I at least already do on purpose with torps near islands, which at the least have a lot of warnings (both visual obstructions, collission sounds, and even HUD indicators that an island is about to be impacted). 4. Except that's the thing: there simply is a border. As long as you have a border, you have people running into it. Deal with it. The velocity vectors along the borders aren't "wrong". It's the velocity vectors orthogonal to the border that are wrong by being set to 0.

That though is something Wargaming can change without having to do something about punishing the border hugger further, but simply expanding the manual guidance zone of aircraft a bit. And while they do that, they have to widen the map outside of the grid a bit to show aircraft moving outside of the border.

Have them move along the border, or even fly over the border. Because yes, you can torp from the outside of the border line.

Uhm, the CV can do that, you just have to position your aircraft first using waypoints. Once you got them to the side, they're the easiest torp targets because they either move slow or along a straight line they have a hard time getting away from... So no. They're not an issue for a normal to decent CV player, let alone a good one. Not to mention that they hardly expect torps from that direction.

The colour of the shells is already different in the base game (AP has a darker orange/red tone where HE has a lighter yellow/orange). I usualy load HE first volley on a BB, AP second. Reason being getting some fires started on the first salvo (with some luck) or some AAA turret kills will make it more susceptible to cruiser and torps later once they get in range of cruisers and DDs.

I know you think you become "hard to hit", but again, that's more to do with other people and their math and anticipation skills than it has to do with you turning constantly. What I find typical about the solutions presented here is the incredibly biased and poorly phrased assumptions: Bad assumption 1: Border hugging is done on purpose. No it's not always done on purpose. People can be in tunnelvision from gunning, running away from an enemy behind them, can have lost their steering for 2 minutes max, simply have no idea what they're doing. You want to punish that? Bad assumption 2: Border hugging makes you harder to hit No, it only makes you harder to hit for people who are poor at maths and vector decomposition and anticipation of moves. Bad assumption 3: Border hugging resulting in taking damage will fix it No, it will just make people whine about being killed by the game without having a choice instead of people. Just because people die faster, doesn't mean it's fixed, you just create a new problem and tbh, you reward lousy shots only and I don't really see why you should give those an arbitrary better chance at winning. Not to say that those people aren't going to sail into the border by accident far more often, but still. Bad assumption 4: Border hugging makes you turn faster No it doesn't. It makes you drift in a direction in which you would normally sail, just without the forward momentum. What it does is decompose your vector in such a way that you seem to accelerate faster, because coming out of a turn decomposes the vector up to the point Ax = A as Ay becomes smaller (down to zero) and A remains constant throughout. Since you turn, you don't get the regular slow acceleration, but an acceleration based on the angle of the ship. You simply need to understand goniometry to make an educated guess for the lead.

Sounds about right. Just saying, you keep whining about a lot of things, but you're not exactly showing off it's overpowered. Quite the contrary, that's barely enough damage to kill one cruiser. How can you be complaining about it?

Your Cleveland does 27.9 K damage per match. What tier are you playing in, tier II?

Or you just aim for the guy on the border that moves more slowly than others and is therefore an easier target provided you realise how the speed vector works... They're not very hard to damage or kill if you just observe the angle of movement and compensate accordingly. :/ In fact, I'd say they're easier kills... If they try to make a fast turn, you just wait for the right time to launch your attack (the point at which they dedicate themselves to an angle). Observation and timing makes them take loads of hits they can barely dodge. What happens too often is people not anticipating the effect of the border and not understanding that these units sail in a straight line at varying speeds, but that a straight line leaves them very vulnerable. I tend to see people who fire too short of a target, because they don't understand to fire OVER the target when it's moving away, or too high, when they don't understand it's moving towards you. When you compare the hull angle to the horizontal, it's incredibly easy to predict the amount of lead you have to use... It's especially easy when they want to use border hugging to turn quickly, because there's a point where they'll be completely stationary and unable to dodge at all. All you need to understand, is this: If a ship encounters an X-axis, the Ay is removed from the previous vector A (=Ax + Ay), leaving just Ax. They're slow, vulnerable targets, just fire quite close to them on the side in which they're pointing with their nose... Then consider the approximate max speed of the ship (they virtually always keep sailing at max speed) and compare the speed difference to the lead you normally give to that type of ship. What exactly is hard about this?

The design of the stats page is complete rubbish. :/ It hides a lot of interesting data, uses arbitrary multipliers, groups random data together... Instead of for instance clustering stats by classes, it provides a total average, making each stat meaningless... I mean, it also averages aircraft kills over ships that have no AA.

Currently completely unexperienced players can (like in other WG titles) acquire high tier premium units without having any experience in similar units whatsoever, often resulting in disastrous play that not only reduces the fun of other players and their chances of winning, but also causes a lot of toxicity and prejudices. Should Wargaming change their policy regarding high tier premiums with respect to the experience of a player purchasing it? i.e. new players might get access to low tier units only, they need to have a certain amount of battles under their belt, they can only punch a little bit above their weight at limited class differences. etc.

Maybe you should go and pray to the RNGesus. Because with that attitude, nothing can help you.

Actually wouldn't be the first time a company changed their micro-transaction policy a bit due to forum pressure... And even then, it's more pointless to post something unconstructive and pointless in a pointless thread. So kudos to you for out-pointlessing me? :/ Winnie, you're just going to be on ignore. You've got problems man. And I feel sorry for your wife if this is how abusive you react even to hypothetical suggestions. Grown up? You? Don't make me laugh. @Sake: I'm talking to someone from a WoWS stats site about integrating a learning and tutorial center in their website. Actually proposed that on the forums earlier. Found similar responses like Winnie's, some person already took issue with the concept of the title "learning and education center" (as description of what it'd be). He got upset "because he's out of school already" blablabla "patronising" blablabla. I'm generally not impressed by the tantrums of such people. So I wonder what makes them think I'd even continue reading that sort of abuse. Winnie's on ignore atm.

No problem about the editing, bullet points are a good way to clarify. @1: not sure if you're aware, but afaik the unified account will be gold, not free exp. I'm personally fine with someone using a time investment to grind, convert and skip tiers. They got some actual experience out of that. Next to experience points. 2. Restrictions are in place for "regular" players too. I don't see why premiums should be exempt. I don't like the concept of bribes and premiums do seem to be about bribing the game makers to skip grind and training entirely when they're just available to just about anyone. I'd be more conservative with it and if this policy had been in place from the start, I very much doubt you'd get up in arms about it because it'd be the way it is. :/ 3. You'd have at least had the time to observe. In fact, if you played a Tenryu for very long, you're probably going to be quite aware of torpedoes, pitfalls etc. Certainly in comparison to someone who just barged in. Even if they don't take all the lessons they needed, at least they'd be better prepared and would have a better idea of what to expect. The arrogance (which doesn't apply to all and not necessarily you, mind, but to sadly a large number of players) is in two things: going into a higher tier and derping around as if you own the place because you spend some money and thus "can", with total disregard for the needs of the people around you that you may influence through that derping around. I don't find that very respectful of your peers. The other bit of arrogance lies in some people presuming that just because they spend money, that they're equals to or better than others in terms of being a quality player. This bit of arrogance you see a lot with beginning players (particularly the dumber and worse ones) that "just want the big guns". These people are very prone to jumping straight into the big leagues with their parent's credit card and offending a lot of people in chat with accusations, abuse, etc. when they lose. I'm of the opinion that everyone by default should first go through the training wheel stages (preferably with much better tutorials than we have now) and that Wargaming should create a gaming environment that allows for personal development of the player. High tier premiums for beginning players do not fit in that vision at all. I have absolutely no problem with the concept of premiums, but I rather that they scale up with unlocks as the player progresses. There's various pedagogical reasons and even positive financial reasons for Wargaming to do that. It rewards players as they progress up the trees with new special units they could get. It encourages players to not take too big steps and when people are amongst equals in skill and experience, it makes the learning process more acceptable, easier, faster and thus more pleasant. Impatience and instant gratification are not traits I'd want to encourage, yet I see this a lot in new games. Obviously because it can sell well. It tends to come at the cost of gameplay and user experience though. That doesn't mean I'm a huge fan of grinding for the sake of grinding either. But that's another topic. Financially, for Wargaming, it also makes lower tier premiums more attractive to players who would otherwise just only go for the biggest shiny bauble, or they might go for premium accounts to get to the next big unlock faster. As for the last paragraph. Just for the record I don't ever do hidden agenda's, I can't stand people with those. I've said before I have a personal interest regarding my higher tier user experience, but it's not the primary and certainly not the only reason. I'm well aware of that. I'm more upset with the constant badgering, accusations and abuse in chat which ruins an otherwise enjoyable match far too often. But yes, I won't ever hide that I do believe it would improve the game quality in other ways. After all, it's part of the reasoning. Is it entirely selfless? No. Is it entirely selfish? No. You say I can't speak for others, then please don't presume to speak for me.

They don't cancel each other out each game. Sure over time they do, but that's irrelevant. The point is they generate the hostile attitudes in between due to what their players do. And I find this toxicity the main issue. You have to understand that I'm not reducing the income of Wargaming AT ALL. IF people want them, they'll buy them. Whether they buy them now or in a week doesn't matter to Wargaming's income. Please where do you lot keep getting this idea from that it reduces income? It makes no sense to suggest that because the purchase will come! The amount of money invested between players cannot be compared. Money investments aren't the only thing people invest though: they invest their time, because they want to enjoy their time. It's a game and should entertain, not frustrate. Reducing frustration levels is therefore a worthwhile goal. Apparently though, some people (SOME!) here replyin "I Wants" and "I haz $$$ so gtfo my way". Which is one type of disrespectful selfish attitude I at least wouldn't want to encourage. I'm definitely not going to bow to it though, so makes me wonder why people think it helps stating that sort of selfish reasoning and expect to be respected for it (by me). If anything, it lowers my respect. Not even being willing to take a small, temporary step back for the good of others AND yourself in the long term? Yeah. Well. Good luck with that. Sake78, on 04 September 2015 - 06:15 PM, said: Which begs the question - why are you so adamant about it? Drop it and move on. What I'm adamant against is bad and petty arguments, especially fearmongering, ego-centrism, strawmen and ad hominems. The more people try to bully, the harder I state my case. Despite having a personal interest, at least my point of view isn't purely about ego-centrism ("what I want"), it's part of a vision to improve the gameplay experience for everyone. Which apparently, a lot of selfish people don't want to see. They just want to see selfishness and elitairianism, or whine about supposed patronising, because that's easier to get upset about, apparently. Why are people so adamant to respond with such ludicrous hostility if they believe Wargaming won't change their policy anyway?

Winnie, count to ten. Then post again. You're overreacting a lot. See Cuddly, THAT is throwing a tantrum. Look at the amount of strawmanning and exageration he's doing. Now I understand he doesn't like the idea, but you can respond in a normal manner as well. He's indignified because I'd be infringing "on his rights and soevereignty", which is only true to a very minor degree. Stalling is not the same as taking away. I do NOT, I repeat, NOT, prevent him from purchasing anything. I just ask him to wait and test the waters first. Yet here he is yelling I remove his ability to purchase. That's not true, I'm asking him to earn the right to purchase, without setting the bar for that very high. I say he'll barely notice it, he explodes in rage with the suggestion that I said he wouldn't notice it. There's no arrogance involved there except from him feeling entitled to something he's allowed to get right now (note the phrasing: allowed to get, by Wargaming). I never called him nor anyone else in this thread a moron, he puts those words in my mouth. Are new players likely to be relatively bad, naive and unexperienced? Yes! Nobody can deny this. It would be arrogant to say otherwise actually... You HAVE to learn this game through trial and error to be able to play it well. No matter how much I'd like that to be different, new players simply have not developed the maneouvring skills, threat detection ability and situational awareness they need, especially in higher tiers. Having SOME degree of that is beneficial to everyone. As for your point Sake, this is still a beta, it's not something completely new players can buy en mass at this point in time. The quality of the player would be a lot worse if this was live. The problem is not that people buy premiums (en mass) at all, so there's little value to pointing out a lot of players bought them. Most of those players will have been in CBT and OBT for a long time even, since the game is not yet live. The presence of premiums is not an issue. The issue is with the quality of new players getting into higher tiers before they're ready, or at least have gone through some basic tutorial stages. Is it really elitarian to ask people to invest a little time before they play with people who invested a lot of time? I'm not asking for chess champions here. I'm asking for people that don't do TK torping, sitting still for no reason or playing peak-a-boo at a corner, who can dodge torps without going into a rant about how OP torpedoes are or how the opposition is cheating because they themselves miss every shot, while the opponents hit most of them and even citadel a lot more, who know what special abilities do and how to (not) use them, where to avoid sailing at least a little bit, etc. What's wrong with asking people to invest a little bit of time in learning the game before they jump into a level they can't handle, likely aggravating their allies and not providing much challenge to their opposition? Where does this arrogance that you're "allowed to because you have a bag of money" come from? Because if you want to talk arrogance? THAT is an arrogant attitude: "hey I just spent some money, **** you all, I do whatever the hell I want. I don't care how much time or money you invested already, if I want to screw you lot over, I'm entitled to it cause I paid." Sorry, no. I find that a far more offensive attitude than someone requesting a warming up period.

~ 7 / 20th for experienced players ~ 2 / 20th for beginning players. I don't think you're drawing the correct conclusion by suggesting most want it. You can get a majority by adding those that don't care, in which case it's those who want it and those who'd allow it. It's definitely a higher percentage than I personally anticipated though. Wargaming has made tier X premiums (all as (clan) rewards I think?), it's not completely unlikely they'd opt to add those for sale at some point, though I think Wargaming has a policy of restricting purchased units to tier 8. (Probably to encourage premium accounts on the long grind to tier 9 and 10). One conclusion you can directly draw from those questions is that people are less reserved about restrictions on players that have been playing for some time with regards to premiums, possibly because they inherently trust them more to uphold a certain minimum quality of play or feel they've earned it and might as well if they have other units. But indeed, a lot of players seem inclined to allow tier X premiums to exist.

If you don't know why players skipping learning curve to jump into a hard match is a problem, then maybe you should do a course in group dynamics. Apparently you have not even the slightest understanding of conflicting ambitions within a group leading to strife and conflicts within the group. That's a bad thing, because it leads to hostility. Apparently, you also don't understand the difference between a reduction and none. People are going to bash units they can't play. But we have WAY MORE of that than needed and quite often it's about premium units. The amount of negativity about the Sims and Grem during CBT was way more than required, since in the proper hands they're good units. Since then they've received buffs along with the fog nerfs that weren't really necessary. You may think it's not reason enough, but that's subjective. It's more than enough reason for me. "Tier access restricted by winrate" is something entirely different. I'm suggesting a VERY SHORT TERM treshold. You now compare it with rather exagerated demands. Strawmanning much are we? I can easily speak for more people, because I'm not the only one holding this viewpoint. Speaking of which, what do you think many people on "your side of the argument" have been doing? In fact, some of your side have been speaking for people who voted neutral as being on their side! But that didn't bother you at all, did it... Double standard much? It's actually partially the fault of the premium user, since that abuse would not be there had that player some basic grasps of combat. By higher tiers people have an expectancy pattern that the other players in their group have a certain minimum skill level. Whether that expectation is entirely justified is questionable. But, they do. If you knowingly choose to go into an arena full of relative "veterans" (ie. people with many more matches behind their belt and a higher skill level) then you're responsible for not living up to their expectations. In fact, Wargaming is responsible for allowing it in the first place due to being the facilitator. Besides, though you might call it victim blaming, the abuse is usualy two directional: having no knowledge of for instance spotting mechanics, they frequently falsily accuse people of being cheats. That's not needed if they were had learned that earlier in the game. It is Wargamings obligation to ease players into the game, be it by tutorials, etc. or simply having players start in beginner areas. There are hundreds, thousands of games who only allow new players to start in beginner areas for very good integration and learning basics reasons. Are you really going to sit there and state it's not beneficiary to overall gameplay experience when these sort of things are at least prevented in part? No, I don't expect it to be a be all end all solution, I never even suggested that. All I've said is that it would be helpful in improving the quality of gameplay for everyone. And it most definitely would reduce the stigma on premium unit players, it would improve the premium unit player's user experience and it would improve the user experience of the people playing with and against them by raising the quality of the starting premium unit player (slightly, depending on how they pick it up). The accusations of elitism you keep throwing around are rather laughable in that light. But let's have you first indicate why it's a good thing that completely inept players play in high tiers, despite all the frustration it causes with both the new player and the players playing with the new player.

That would remove it from being manual. It would also mean you can't overshoot your target. Plus the ones that hit are already dropped from roughly that range...