mtm78

Reverse order my 'friend', he turns of chat as he is a TERRIBLE player and thinks that anyone who points that out is 'TOXIC' Topic of this thread is TERRIBLE PLAYERS making gameplay less enjoyable for everyone. Because stats are 'irrelevant' in discussion right? Especially after he ticks all the red flags it's still a 'bad' thing to do, looking up actual STATISTICAL INDICATORS as that's 'irrelevant' right? Ow please Against him? No I tried to help him. If he realizes he is terrible he might improve. If he realizes he might be the actual reason people tell him he is useless... no not even that, he is a detriment to his team... then he might do us the favor of playing coop instead. 37% is not 'bad', being bad is acceptable. But being terrible and claiming 'kids in chat' are toxic, please, stick with coop it's more enjoyable for EVERYONE there including himself I bet UNLESS he LIKES being a detriment to his own team ( we call those people trolls.... ). Really? You think so? Please explain And stick to FACTS please. Not generic nonsense statements with no actual backing, but facts which you can prove and which are actually relevant ( you know like his 37% win rate in combination with his statement in this thread about how to prevent terrible plays from happening AND him saying he disables chat because he thinks ' kids don't understand how to play the game ' ----> unable to break that up, no I don't look up everyone, for instance I already knew Ghostbuster_ is a better player then me when he disagreed with me on Shima / Gearing balance so I just LISTENED to the guy as I KNEW what he would say was likely to be VALUABLE to me ).

This is a discussion forum about a game, try to stay on topic please and stop trying to make it about my person since you don't like my opinions on the game and fail to properly come up with alternatives since you lack actual arguments.

Nope system is automated as you could read in that previous topic which we shall not discuss in detail as that would be in violation of forum rules.....

Yeah but everyone has their own views and most will just post them presuming their idea is obviously best and disregard anything someone else says. Even I do disregard things being said here, since some people for instance make broad statements without even taking into account team compositions or spawns. Any tactic should always take into account team composition and spawn locations, disregarding that makes no sense at all.

That wrong though. Closest cap is far from always the cap you should go to.

I am a lot closer to Kiev then Trashcan....

Failed to supply arguments but claims it's a known fact -> that's you. I never have tantrums on forum unless people like you resort to ad hominem attacks when they can't ' proof their point' using proper arguments, and even then it's usually gone after I pointed out how arguments would be better then ad hominem.

Free? No you're part of a team which relies on you to do your job ( or better said: what they think is your job ). Want to play ' free roaming pirate ' pick a stealthy cruiser like an Atago or something Seriously, almost no one complains about a cruisers going off alone to a cap as long as he doesn't die right away, but a DD going to cap alone because he is 'free' and then dying -> lots of salt. Because, in most games, the DD's are in fewer numbers and they have more defined roles to perform ( capping and spotting ).

1. It's not 'sneering' it's pointing out COLD HARD FACTS which have everything to do with the discussion. 2. The guy has the same wr as my loss rate, and he posts he turns of chat so he doesn't have to listen to the 'kids' telling him what to do. That is EXACTLY the topic.... By making people like THAT either willing to accept THEY are the problem and at least ATTEMPT to better themselves so EVERYONE can have a more enjoyable environment. And if they don't want to do that, restrict them to another gamemode where they don't bother the normal players. And yes, I don't consider 37% normal. It's so far below normal it's in line with a super unicum in reverse which should be 0.01% or so off the community ( before you're trying to make me look like some elitist or something ). I don't want to exclude bad players, those are fine. But this guy is not only terrible but also toxic in that he blames ' kids ' for the issues in this game. not even close

Yamineko, on 25 January 2017 - 02:35 PM, said: First of all, the BBs won't be through the channel until long after the first smoke runs out, so let's disregard them. Only his cruisers will be able to support him against DDs and radar cruisers. Oh fun fact, the enemy BBs will be in effective firing places earlier, since they don't have blocking mountains. Second this is very risky for the DD. Even disregarding the radar cruisers, smoking late will make him eat a ton of damage against any other DD. Assume you're in a Fubuki and the enemy has a Benson. Do you go A, running the risk you're fighting a Benson, who will most likely remove most of your HP? Also, if he goes past the first exit that the cruisers are supposed to take, he has a hard time getting out. The second turn to the right is very awkward (unless he is already standing there, which would make him both immobile and early to smoke), as it presents the entire ship to any enemy. The turn to the left removes the DD too long from the game. Third, I think the cruisers have very little to gain there. If the enemy only sends a single DD and maybe one cruiser, they can be effective and take both out. But if not, they risk being killed by torpedoes and the enemy BBs/CAs (the BBs arrive a lot earlier than yours, and the cruisers will be immobile). The exit to the right is also very risky: What if the enemy pushes B with a BB? You have no way of telling what the pubbies will do and if there is a BB, your cruisers will be screwed. What if the enemy has a carrier? That position is even more risky for cruisers camping in smoke. All in all I think going A is a break even at best and a death trap at worst for cruisers. And for the DD as well, if he plays aggressively like you suggest (let's not forget, he is at the mercy of his cruisers that they hit better than the enemy does). I thought you were talking about B cap Anyway, I think all this theoretic discussion is 100% fruitless, as it all depends on team compositions and spawns, and even on divisions being present and yes also about player skills of those present in the match. I go for A always when spawning closest, unless I have zero support. If I go for A and I can't complete the cap I will try and exit through H3 and just delay them capping A hoping the rest of team is at least doing something useful other than supporting me. I do this ofc only in a DD and I do it only because I know I can usually pull it off even if it's just delaying enemy cap without support.

My point was about a Chappy which just didn't like it when I didn't agree with his tactical approach to the game, I linked the replay in that thread I made, and I said nothing which was actually offensive ( which includes what you're saying, as it might be true/a fact, it's still over the top and in cases like that I would not object to a chat abuse report being counted ) yet it was according to one guy a correct and valid justification for a chat ban based on the report of someone who just didn't like someone not agreeing with him. I don't agree that telling someone he is useless is enough grounds to justify counting chat abuse reports for, as that is both factual and not offensive. If someone feels offended by being called useless, it's his problem. not the problem of the one telling him such. Insults for the sake of insults is exactly what the report option is for, and I would never complain about it being used for it's intended reason. The game is PEGI7 But there is a distinct difference between : "you $%%#$%^ you %^$^$%^$, $%^^$%^$% @#$%#$^#% absolutely R%$%^#$%^$" and "Gneisenau, why do you have a spotter plane and why are you sniping at 23km from closest enemy?"

WTR is to damage centric, 50% of WTR is based on your damage output.

Funny guy Ow wait.... Who says I get reported AFTER I die? Better way of not getting chat banned is WG closing the loopholes which allow trolls to report people who actually haven't done anything warranting the option they been reported for. But hey you already know this but you enjoy trying to discredit my person by making it seem like I am the toxic element. Just like that one guy who got the lid on his nose keeping that thread open ' as perfect example ' only to have to close it after noticing people ( with brains and without prejudice ) were actually agreeing and pointing out the report system is broken in it's current implementation

^^^^^ edit: ow crap... didn't even notice but here goes ->

That is the same discussion I had with a Chappy in my team the other day, we tried to get the DD's to get a consensus with the team on what to do, but the DD's didn't even respond in chat and went to another cap. So I said well ok they want to do X so let's support them. The Chappy didn't agree and went somewhere else, saying he wouldn't support the DD's if they didn't use chat. I said he was right in the sense that I agreed the other cap's were easier to get and hold and that using chat improves the chances of winning, but since it was a domination match and we already had one dd less then enemy team, supporting the DD's in whatever they planned on doing is usually the best option. Domination is won or lost by the team which can preserve their dd's, or who can control the cap zone's but on most maps and most end game scenarios you do better with dd's being alive in the mid / late game.

His opinions are based on flawed reasoning and that I will off course point out. Disagreeing with it is fine, having arguments to support it which are actually valid is better though. Good reason to stick with this game over 'boats' No, the emphasis on teamwork doesn't make the game toxic, people who don't try to display the needed amount of teamwork is what makes the game toxic. Yes, WG should add more tutorials so people are told by THEM how the game should be played. And perhaps even a restriction on entering PvP for people who perform so bad ( I have a 37% wr player in another thread proclaiming he disables chat because it is toxic and he doesn't need to listen to 'kids' telling him how to play ) that they ruin the gameplay environment for normal and above average players. That would lead to a lot less toxicity, even though I don't agree with the terminology being applied on people trying to improve the gameplay enjoyment of the majority of the playerbase as the expensive of a very select few who just ruin it for everyone. No one hates on the average players. It's that 37% wr player I mention above, with a Tirpitz / Scharnhorst and a bunch of other high tier premiums as main ships, who disables chat, and ruins the entire environment for everyone. Average players can have excellent matches and bad one's and that's not the problem. It's people who just don't care about PvP environment, people who are happy losing 63% of their games, and still blaming the game is full of kids who don't actually understand how to play. That is toxic to the game, no the people who comment on them in game, calling out how useless they are. Try playing on off-hours instead of peak hours and make the same statement? And no, you can't only have +-2 when there are fewer people online, that would create an unfair advantage to those playing on peak hours not having to learn how to play when up-tiered. Also, there are new lines being added but there still aren't many, with +-1 you will see the same ships in every match. Most of us like some variety.

While it's true that this happens, I can't forget CBT where I was the scrub and I actually only started realizing this because people in random battles used chat to try and get me to play different. Once I started listening I realized I was having a larger impact on the game's outcome if I followed the advice off better players. Sadly that was because I was aware I wasn't such a good player. Something which doesn't hold for most people in that situation.

Nice strawmen.

Yeah well if you prefer that other game with no emphasis on teamwork ( OR on improving yourself ) I would like prefer you to keep playing that game

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to downplay the emphasis on teamwork as BEING THE KEY PART of this game? Wow.... Really? Am I doing that? When we had +-3 mm I was a scrub, a baddy, a noob or however you want to call it. Being in +-3 actually made me a better player. That is why I oppose people who think that they will improve when the circumstances for them are made easier. That's not how you improve.

I know why I go A, because if we go C we ALWAYS get people going to 10 line or B line where they are tactically worthless.

Objective is WINNING. That isn't the same as 'doing max damage and sinking most ships'. Most games are decided by point pressure leading trailing team to push into converging fire lines.

Expending on that, being -2 more then +2 is an issue that is obvious. Tier spread should be equal in being up tiered and down tiered. That is why tier 7 is not better then tier 5. But being -2 doesn't mean you can't influence a match greatly. I been top XP in many matches where I was bottom tier. Saying you're nothing but free damage/kills is just because you can't see where/what/when you have to do to make a difference. Also, take into account you get increased xp for doing damage to higher tier enemies -> nice bonus. Game develops like that because of playerbase not so much because of game mechanics and certainly not because of +- tier spread. Games with equal tiers produce the exact same amount of camping.

You're thinking like a bad player, that's the issue.