Kartoffelmos

Well, met statpaddin' a division with Blogis, Chevy and Defcon in their respective Scharnhorsts and Sims. Tried to put them off-guard with some light taunting, but sadly it didn't work. The fact that my team refused to push for the objectives didn't help either, so we lost quite easily (scoreboard for proof). Was fun writing spam in the chat though .

I voted for the "arbitrary RNG roll that pretty much is outside your influence and that has no seemingly purpose other than piss off players and give them a small compensation in return as an admittance of the injustice that just happened" because of obvious reasons.

Of course not! It's hidden within the incomprehensibly advanced tactic of being immune to most AP shells due to the power of 14,3! On the other hand, HE shells are too ignorant to count past the number of 6, thus they ignore this rule entirely! As such, HE shells must be punished for not respecting the power of 14,3! Any other solution that may (or may not) improve gameplay is unacceptable! It's all about cause and effect; battleships "spam" HE because of the popular bow-on-backpedaling tactic so in stead of complaining about this particular issue, HE is painted as the culprit. It's even more silly when one consider that battleships take more damage from AP shells than any other source (plunging fire and whatnot included).

I was thinking about the same myself: remove smoke but make them capable of stealth-firing. However, there's a glaring issue with this suggestion: what role will the RN cruisers fulfil that the RU destroyers cannot do better? Sure, you have stealth-firing, but the RU destroyers will be able to remain visible and do the exact same tasks (supporting friendly destroyers from a distance, lighting up battleships and harassing enemy cruisers). Maybe the torpedoes will help, but since stealth-torping is a no-go, I fail to see how it will change much. At least it's better than WG's solution as that makes them seemingly (we do not know how nimble they are, for instance, even without speed boost) inferior to RU destroyers in every aspect.

Battleships using HE... Bow-on meta... Obviously there's something wrong with HE, fires and cruisers!

So all of your information and experiences are based on the rather "mediocre" state of low-tier battleships (a certain premium excluded)? I'm just asking since I do not think that a total of 10 (EDIT +9 battles in the Warspite, sorry) games in Kongo and Fuso (the battleships become really competitive at these tiers) is representative for the battleship experience as a whole. And no, co-op doesn't mean anything as your 97% win ratio merely reinforces why battles in this mode shouldn't be taken seriously. In any case, if fires and HE is so broken, why is the battleship class the most popular one (~30% before the introduction of KM BBs)? Surely cruisers would be most popular?

Well, the deadline for the "famous" bet is getting close (couldn't find the original quote as it has probably been Vuk'd into oblivion), but I guess a certain other forum user know where it is:

Didn't get anything when I logged into the game though...

Meanwhile, where is the argument that a battleship should be helpless against a destroyer/CV launching torpedoes at its broadside? I mean, they are supposed to be the counters to battleships after all? And for the record: cruisers are not OP. Otherwise we would have an abundance of cruisers and not battleships (this was before the release of KM BBs so please don't bring that up) and destroyers as it is now.

Well, I can somewhat understand the people who are "merely" playing the game and don't care about all the other stuff, but for someone who are also using the forum? My curiosity was piqued.

Reading the news section is overrated . Though, how does one miss the information when launching the game? Surely it should be in your best interest to check out the new articles?

I wonder... Might "Manners Maketh Man" refer to reporting someone for bad manners aka misbehaviour in chat? I did that once today, but I'm not sure if it was in the same game as the one I was awarded the achievement. Other than that, 10 games with no team damage sounds like the most plausible requirement, but shouldn't more players have gotten the award if this is the case?

Met Mister_Greek in his Russian sausage just now when I played my Ibuki. Sadly, my team's battleships did not go for the objectives (well, more than one at least) so we fought an uphill battle straight from the start. It didn't help that the enemy Khaba was allowed to freely do as he/she pleased either. At the very end of the game when facing the Moskva for a second time, I failed to notice a friendly Benson trying to give me smoke which might have led to his demise :<. On the bright side, I managed to get one torpedo hit at him, so at least I got something out of that encounter! Good game though, but I would liked to have more competent BB players on my side. Our Yamato even accused my for being a coward for some reason. It's not like the Ibuki is the best ship for tanking shells, so I'm not sure why he was complaining.

BB UP, buff pl0x! Wait, are we now allowed to complain about BB numbers and then have them (indirectly) nerfed in three consecutive patches?

If you mean WoT's version, then no, I actually like that one. It doesn't create toxicity since the marks cannot be seen before you're close to the tank. In addition, it isn't an accurate measurement of a player's skill level as it is dependent on the number of battles as well as having the values skewed in light tanks, statpadder-tanks and/or unpopular ones. This also works in preventing toxicity since zero marks doesn't automatically mean that the player is bad. As such, multiple marks do not mean a skilled player, but it is a good enough indicator that the player is competent. Depending on the tank, three marks may reveal a skilled player though. The biggest flaw with the system is that you can farm damage to get marks which may not help your team to win (late damage and all that jazz). I can see it work in ships, but it can result in frustrating focus fire from the enemy team if the marks are big (ships are quite larger than tanks after all), especially from carriers.

Meh, win ratio is the only stat that matters that cannot be easily padded (at least not without being extremely obvious), but I still do not want it to be displayed during battles. Displaying stats is just a bad idea, even if we had an accurate measurement of an individual player's skill.

I was once accused by Bagel an anonymous supertester of being a scrub! Now I'm permanently emotionally scarred :<. As for the actual topic, please do not suggest such a thing. XVM-sniping and "omg, we lose because I cannot into statistics" are bad enough in World of Tanks. I do not want the same to happen here. I like stats and ratings outside the game, but I feel that they have no place in the actual battles since they bring nothing but toxicity, focusing and silly behaviour like suicide charges.

Are you sure you want to be so certain in your statement? Jump to 2:30 when you want to see what happens when AP is loaded. I think they are fine. As long as fires aren't a major part of the total damage dished out, I do not think we need to change anything.

Except it doesn't. As such: Both HE and AP shells have their damage reduced by damaged sections (note that it doesn't specify the kind of damage, just gives penetrating hits as an example). Fires/flooding and citadel penetrations/overpenetrations ignore this rule and still deal damage to the ship. HE damage and fires can be healed, thus leading to a greater chance that the sections will yield less damage as the battle progresses (you heal more damage, yet the section will remain damaged if I'm not mistaken). It has been a common tactic for HE-spammers to change to AP when your HE-shells fail to deal out any damage (after setting your target on fire, of course) so I fail to see the weakness of AP rounds. Please remember that citadels cannot be depleted and this also extends to the turrets (ignoring the bow section's hit points). As for aiming with HE, you need to hit the deck/superstructure in order to deal out damage, as well as hitting the relevant sections in order to start fires. If you hit the belt armour or the upper part of the hull (depending on the thickness of the hull and the shells used, of course), you will deal little to no damage. AP on the other hand will always deal damage in the case of overpenetrations as long as you don't bounce. You also have the "fair and balanced" ability in battleships to nuke everything with two-three shots, again demonstrating that AP is not inferior.

Since we are getting awfully many "cruiser-killers" these days, when can we expect to get a battleship-killer that isn't just another battleship (and doesn't nuke the other classes with ease as well)?

Players sometimes behave like morons strategically. Supertesters are also players. That is all.

If the Yankees could do it, I suppose the Brits were capable of doing it as well. Granted, this was only a test launch, but still: You even have the manual* of the tubes highlighting the feature: Hydraulic transmitters (single-launch mode): Manual percussion (single-launch mode): Electric firing cable (simultaneous launch mode): Note the multiple levers in the first two "scenarios". I'm not sure if it's possible to launch torpedoes individually electronically, but I find it unlikely that the option to do so didn't exist (maybe it's written somewhere but I can't be bothered to search further as my interest in this is more of a mechanical nature). Now, whether the different navies chose to use the single-fire mode(s) or the simultaneous mode is another matter entirely, but the possibility is at least there. *21-INCH ABOVE WATER TORPEDO TUBES / MARK 14 AND MODS AND MARK 15 AND MODS / DESCRIPTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE (16 NOVEMBER 1955, link) The mark 14 torpedoes were used during the war, so please ignore the publication date; the specifications should be valid for WWII usage as well.

Well, from the actual interview: "...so you will be able to fire single torpedoes from their torpedo tubes". (There's also a section where he talks about the Britons using this tactic and whatnot.) So no, it's not about single-volley torpedo launchers but the fact that you can launch torpedoes individually.

Was more of a jab towards his "situational awareness working as intended" video fiasco, but yeah, he would be extremely silly if he were okay with this.