mtm78

Indeed. Though I don’t have a gc and was comparing Pyotr to say Okt. Revolution. I also specially mentioned survivability. Arizona isn’t too slow.

I thought so to when playing Pyotr, there is no way Okt. Revolution can even hand a candle to how survivable that ship is. It's basically the closest to a god mode battleship in terms of survivabilty, untill they close the distance / get your flank. I actually think Arizona is pretty OP for a premium, it has no real effective drawbacks over a New Mexico for instance. If there are equal silver ships out there, I guess there are. But Arizona just is a good ship and a lot of good players play it with their 19 point captains since it's a premium. But I think it's safe to say that help Dunkek a lot less as Arizona. *note, my Arizona has had a 19p captain from game 1, my Izmail had an 11p captain. Being how you can build a good RU BB with captain skills augmenting the quick reload of repair and heal I do think my Izmail would perform better with a proper captain.

Thinking about my last game, what I would like to have in this game would be less playing it. Last game our flank had two tier 5 BB and a Fuso, Fuso being top tier. Enemy has 3 BB's, our Fuso decides to run away, and then had the nerve to complain why people thought he was

Ow he could have actually spotted a periscope, but it wasn't indeed connected to a player / submarine. It might have just been scenery, and it would fit in WG's sense of humor ;) edit: which makes me wonder if they aren't laughing their behinds off atm reading another guy had a brown alert in his ship when spotting the periscope

So what you want the 10km to be then? You mean that only ships within 10km from the ship spotting you should get their targeting information? That would help a bit I think.

If you kite around edges of islands you can HE spam the living hell out of people and even if they temporary get los if it only lasts 2 seconds after you break it omg it will be glorious..... Hell to play against tho.

edit: solo -> (* also those Fuso stats are from right after OBT, they shouldn't be used in comparison. ) Arizona bad? The shells are not great when up tiered but you can always pen upper hull / belt / superstructure, some targets take more dmg as others but still viable even in tier 8 when uptiered a bit because unlike Spite she has range. And while Spite's gun's pen much better even when uptiered, my dmg in Arizona's higher because when shooting at cruisers it doesn't really matter at all. So why is it still the best performing tier 6 BB? ( edit above ss is from my own stats obviously but if you look at snapshots she is still there ). I don't know why people are saying she isn't good, maybe they don't play the same ship? As above the shells are not as much a problem as Warspite has with it's range when uptiered. And turret traverse is a factor you can limit with good positioning. Shhh. Izmail takes massive dmg from Arizona's gun's, even if you don't score citadels. If anything, Izmail is the stinker here ( I know, contrary to popular believe that RU BB's should be OP ).

No you actually agree with me, but you fail to connect this to fewer rewards in losses -> slower less comfortable progress No it is not, the dog trick repeats the same circumstances time and time again, it requires thinking to select the right action for the right situation at the right time. That's why some people win more as others. the game objective is to win, so yes, rewarding not winning less would be quite encouraging for bad players to git gud. I don't think you do. Are you aware of what you're saying? In order for a system to accurately reward victory oriented actions it would need to understand what they are. That's a rather big problem, and while you could arguably teach an AI to play World of Warships pretty darn good that's still not the same as writing a reward system which is based on the value of actions done by players in a match. No, because it's not needed. The problem is much more fundamental. You want a system to reward actions based on their value for a possible victory, when each of the popular demands are unsuitable to be implemented due to various known reasons. Tanking -> when do you reward it? Want to reward it only if allies are being 'shielded' by having some difficult rule about when it's actually WORTH IT for the battleship to TRADE HP TOWARDS A GOAL, what is the goal, why is he tanking, is he achieving something which will help the team or not? If you can't even get a specific example of how to implement this, this entire discussion is pointless. Like it always turns out to be, since no one ever comes up with specifics ( wonder why ).

Yeah... nope, all models in the client eventually get datamined, this is why they have test clients ( which also connect to different server ). Especially a sub test which involves also server logic change won't be 'ghost' implemented in the live client, to much risks for bugs. Anyway I'm not going to convince you I guess, so to each their own

Battleship player detected

? Your thread tittle and opening post. Not any player, don't even go there Ye, perhaps. As I said, those numbers they care about so much for these events, they mean nothing compared to keeping your ACTUAL core players happy. Time will tell

Only though when applying DoT, if you're already burning even a DD is better off sending AP in the superstructure.

For a quality poster I would expect more as to single handedly qualify that group as being 'THE CORE' group of 'dedicated serious determined and passionate players'. And they are still WG's core playerbase, which they should take note off and I'm sure they do, they pay the bills. Players which grinded an event are not 'core players' because they grinded an event. If you wanted to shine a positive light on those who completed the grind ( as such I think is your intent ) it could have been done in much better ways. Like 'congratulations to everyone who completed X event' instead of the 'CORE' number / group of World of Warships players. And a nice link to where people can actually see the leaderboard ( people like me who couldn't be bothered with the event really don't even know where to look ;) ). edit: btw if you would be right it would be terrible news, since it's the core players which stick through with the game which keep your game alive, not the mass you draw in with some event, those will gradually all drop off once the event is over.

Come up with something concrete please, specifics. What? You think people should be rewarded for a type of play even if it's not helping in winning the game? How the HECK are people supposed to actually LEARN TO PLAY THEN? You don't do actions because 'they are encouraged' you do actions because you WANT TO WIN THE GAME. And read my previous text for why it doesn't work. Actions in game are WORTHLESS if they do not lead to winning. And sometimes an action can help in securing that victory, and sometimes they are not. I really can't see how you can get this explained any better as above, yet you still don't seem to get the point

Do you need more as 12km really? Maybe I am to used to the new IJN's but it seems a great range. 16.5 seems excessive ( not sure what kind of captain build I could come up with, still stuck at Fletcher ).

Yeah and now factor in power creep. A lot of people understand it is a 'logical process' but it's also meant to make people grind new content so they can be as 'competitive' again as they were. Ofc there is some re balancing but the burn out is not because of the amount of content, it's about the amount of content which appeals to players and WG makes clever use of this.

There are much better qualifications of 'core players' then those who grinded to some event leaderboard. I would see core players as those who have spend a lot of money on this game, and who have been an active part of the community for a long time. Really I don't like that qualification of 'serious determined and passionate players' being applied to that group exclusively

I don't run TA on my Shima anymore... and not on any IJN dd... TA seems to be an NA trait now, they actually got the range to use it. Mhm, maybe if I had an Asashio it would be different. But even then it's 11.8s for eight torps unless you got reloadbooster ready, and they are SLOW so you need to be gud at not launching white line with them.

It depends on how many of them there are. DoT becomes a bigger issue when more and more players are keeping HE pressure on you. This only applies to the one being unlucky to be the focus of the HE spam, usually the team applying HE spam will still lose because the other team will eventually out damage them. This mainly. Doesn't mean that being in a division with some firestarters in cruiser or gunboat's you shouldn't be firing HE at the bow tanking enemy BB. If you're not sure you can stack DoT effect, AP on superstructure will be better. I hate playing against a coordinated team which stacks DoT on me... glad it doesn't happen that often ;) Usually the enemy won't even notice what your repair or heal status is..

That would upset their cash cows to much.

Wew such toxicity on this forum

Was talking about Pyotr... Okt Rev. is just a bad Imperator Nikolai with a turret mounted wrong and more range.

@iFax if you find my essay boring, how is your win rate at higher tiers compared to mid tiers? I'm interested in why you thought it was boring what I wrote.

Yeah... WG will never remove divisions from randoms, lots of people would only play in divisions for various reasons ( social, sanity... ). Is it fair? Well just as random MM, divisions are also random, and as long as that is true it's not creating an imbalance overal for any player. Mhm, you really think shipJesus would be the first to discuss this or to bring up aspects related to it? If you remove survival requirement for say fireproof, it doesn't mean anything. It's like I already explained, sometimes a push even at the risk of your own ship is good, sometimes it is not. And the game can not be taught to differentiate between it. If you get burned down, it doesn't always mean you did something for the victory. So 'points tanked' can not be rewarded more. Imagine the famous full hp bb at the end of the game with all his allies death, he might 'tank' a couple off millions because now all remaining enemies have nothing else to shoot at ( let's imagine they don't all die really quick giving broadside to 'fire all the guns' ). Damage tanked is a crap measurement of actually doing something useful. A CV which deploys a fighter to protect an ally which might die anyway, and doesn't use his strike capability to kill the enemy might not be working towards a victory at all. Yes, sounds crap for the ally not getting support, but sometimes in order to win a game, sacrifices have to be made just as in real battles. Purely selfish damage dealer? Do they exist? Even a Khaba has utility, applying dmg on enemy team. A battleship is in essence nothing but area denial for cruisers, destroyers are area denial for battleships and cruisers should be area denial for destroyer, the application of dmg is important but not more important as where it is applied. And this is why it's not possible. You can not reward actions because reason X, since reason X doesn't always apply. And if would always apply, you're forcing people to play in ways which will make other ships from the same class but vastly different role ( Des Moines vs HIV/Zao ) who contribute in different ways, to get different rewards for the exact same part in securing a victory. A flanking cruiser applying dpm and denying pushes/providing vision, and a more static area denial cruiser against destroyers. In order for the game to reward actual contributing actions, it would need to take into account each possible ship role. And playerbase. The system would need to account for the playerbase. Because if you care for the victory, there is a big difference in 'team oriented actions' which endanger yourself, when the one you're endangering yourself for might be eating to much from the glue jar and not going to be worth the risk to yourself. Or when people think I need their help, like a destroyer dropping a smoke screen... yeah if I need one great, but usually they just block my own vision of the enemy and I could really do without those.. but sometimes a smoke is just what I needed to make a turn without being seen broadside. How is the game supposed to know what I need? Imagine being at 980 points and your top tier full hp BB just needs to survive but decides to ram the low hp enemy low tier battleship.... ramming for the low tier was great, for my top tier Soyuz it was ... But sometimes it can be the other way around. It is therefore not possible. The only way to actually encourage good play is to make losing actually a bad experience in comparison to what it is now. Since that is what all those actions actually boil down to, winning or losing more. Not thinking you're 'playing for the victory' when you got no idea what that would mean. Yes that also means it's hard for new people to learn to play the game, as they have limited feedback and sadly you keep seeing people claiming their WR is because WG rigged the game just against them, in favor or others, because they seemingly don't like him/her which is a direct result of them lacking feedback that it IS their own actions in game leading to their statistical performance. But no, this isn't a problem which can be solved by giving XP for smokescreens, or for dropping a fighter, or for a battleship to tank damage. All of those scenarios are not directly tied to doing something useful, you need much stricter descriptions: like, if BB is in position Y in relation to ally Y and enemy is at bearing Z AND BB tanks damage from ship which has line of sight to both him and ally Y, then BB get's 'insert amount' of experience awarded. Realizing this, it might be an easy conclusion to think it's easier to just lower the rewards for situations which don't indicate team play. Which is the next falacy because even that rule isn't always true. I can be a battleship and the last one alive with almost full hp and it CAN be because my team just folded before I got into position to attract fire ( slow mid tier BB's ), so if I am then still able to win the game because I have so much HP to play and trade with against an enemy team which is severely weakened, why do I still need to get punished? Or do you exempt slow battleships from this 'rule'? You see that this doesn't lead anywhere now? Ships / situations / players all affect what actions are actually going to secure a victory. What if the DD player smokes up the wrong ally, should he still be rewarded for 'team play'?

If the increase does not happen, blame your division mates per usual ( this one is on the house btw ). For division counseling I offer a special rate btw, three times advice to play with different people, for the price of only two! Depending on ship those captain skills not being 100% tuned for the ship ( or not having enough points to do so ) in higher tiers does get punished harder as on mid tiers, I notice this myself a lot. Also, there is a bit of a shell shock moment I feel when going from say tier 7 to tier 9. Tier 9 and ofc tier 10 seem to have ships which create a meta which isn't found at the lower tiers. A Smolensk equivalent at lower tiers, nah not really. Battlecruisers with big guns but taking up cruiser slots? Not at lower tiers ( except Kirov maybe and ofc Molotov ). Benham's and Shima's with their skill, ofc you can run into a trb running ijn lower tiers but it's not that often. I'm not saying it's harder, just different I think ( I'm not sure myself, since I also played mainly mid tiers till now, with 343 battles in tier X and ~600 at tier 9 ). Tier 8 and 7 are just more relaxing usually, if it isn't for team's which just seems to have no cohesion at all but you see this on tier X as well sometimes. Anyway Pete was right again it seems, you need more battles at the tier to get the right feeling for it.