Karasu_Browarszky

Around 50 min mark there's talk about gold ammo, and about 'asymmetrical matchmaking' in WoWS.

Oh my... it's very interesting when he talks about his job interview Minks around 27 min mark...

Don't think you want any pointers from me, there's a reason why I keep my stats hidden...

Yeah, but you can always shoot at bow tankers.

Crispy yama = dead yama.

Yes, no, yes, yes.

Workable.

Which was, and still largely is the ship on the high tiers...

Hmm mmm... Thanks. I typically much prefer a torpedo build. I also have the Småland, so much give this some thought...

Blimey, that was the ship next on my increasingly decreasing list of ships to get...

Murmansk was a good ship to have, originally.

Have to say it would be Slava. Not an enjoyable ship for me, nor very efficient in battle. Zero historical interest or relevance either.

Do this. However, for future reference keep in mind that some e-mail services (like Hotmail/Outlook) allow you to creat aliases that function as e-mail addresses linked to the same mailbox.

Well, perhaps tomorrow...

Aye, it's good to be trailing a ship like a DD. Not just near islands, maybe, but it's always a good idea to have something out there looking out for you, even if passively only.

Well, it's not entirely useless to engage the enemy BB's, but the problem is that due to the way the game mechanics work, getting rid of the enemy DD's is a higher priority. Not to mention looking after your own. As a DD player, though, I think you also have to try and manage your risks and not place yourself needlessly in harm's way. But the islands are a serious issue for me. I lose battles, essentially, because of them. Typically, in a BB the turning circle is either too large, or the rudder is not responsive enough making me hit the islands if I go too close to them. (Leaving my BB vulnerable to enemy torps - Game Over.) On some maps the decision has to be made early enough whether to redeploy where there are fewer islands or to risk it.

It is a little dicey going close to cap in a larger ship, because, predictably, you will get focused by the enemy. Theoretically speaking, it might be better to have a DD spotting the enemy DD and for the support to engage the enemy further back. This is something only rapid firing cruisers can manage, though. It won't be pretty when things go south.. I've seen that happen, the competent one of the two teams does exactly that with up to five or even six ships immediately all firing at the enemy DD after its been spotted. The reason how I know this so well is because.. most times I'm that DD they spotted. Conversely, my own usually is of the type that leaves its DDs hung out to dry and prefers to watch the show. I see a pattern with your choice of captain skills.

Yeah, well. I don't fight like that though. I don't care about area control unless I'm trying to control it as when I'm capping, or defending a cap in a DD. If I see a friendly DD trying to cap and the situation allows for it, I will try to give support which is about as far as I go with that 'area denial' concept. The game for me, is more about balancing your time between damaging/sinking ships and preventing the enemy from winning by cap points. Your 'brawling' may go for a similar outcome, but I think the 'thought process' is a little different. Uhm.. Do you habitually assign captain points to secondary skills? There are ships where this might make a difference (though not so much now as opposed to before..), and then there are ships where I think secondary builds are a waste of time (and points, and equipment slots).

"In simplest terms, early game = sniping, late game = brawling." This is something that I can do, at least in the sense of 'closing in for the kill', but only for that purpose, not for the sake of 'brawling' per se. I'd like to get 'support' from my secondaries when the distances are shorter, but that is not possible with most ships, and even when it is possible, the secondaries tend to be a joke. At least I would hope the secondaries keep DD's at a distance, but... that does not always work. Chasing a DD with a BB is usually a huge mistake, unless there's a frienly CV spotting. And I do not like the islands still, no matter what phase of the battle I'm in.

Could be.. but I only engage in 'brawling' on the lower tiers, because of the limitations of the guns, and even then I try to it the smart way and the islands are actually hurting me a lot when I do that. Nor would I enjoy having the rocks about on the higher tiers, where I will only 'brawl' if I absolutely have to in an attempt to stop the enemy push or give support to friendly ships trying to cap, though I always get the feeling I've made a mistake somewhere along the line if I find myself that close to the enemy.

You are a GENIOUS!

I'm not saying it would not come with a few caveats, and players could still choose to play as they want but... on their head be it then. They can play in OPS the way they want, but if they yolo so much the team starts losing potential stars because of them... let's say they aren't going to win any popularity contests, and probably not many operations either. The 'Bot commander' like in Aegis on the Schors might be an interesting solution. This would be the 'Flagship', and the game would be providing 'Tactical cues' for as long the Flagship was operational, meaning that the team would be also tasked to protect their flagship. This is starting to sound a little too good and interesting to ever actually get implemented by WG.

As the usual run-of-the-mill players we got have any desire for teamplay or tactics wanting only to go pew-pew... Yeah, I get the boring little tidbit of information, and it's one of the other problems we keep having with the game, in addition to camping, stale game play, HE spamming, CV's, islands, lack of operations or modes... did I mention the islands?... that WG is not doing much to address as years go by. I don't think it's impossible, though, the do something similar in the OPS. They do have the technology of directing the battle, and if they could add a reward/penalty system to encourage it, it might go a long way towards solving many of the problems. You are probably ready to tell me the players would not like it, the ones who want to play a game of naval warfare and warships as long as it has nothing to do with naval warfare nor warships.

Let's call it 'scaled down realism'. The line that should not be crossed is deviating from realism. Uhu.. well in that case we understand the phrase 'fun, engaging, diverse' completely and utterly differently. Brawling can be fun, just not on the higher tiers, it's mostly something you should have on the lower tiers that nobody wants to play (due to lack of missions). The fun part of 'long range sniping' is if you get to show superior gunnery and use superior tactics to defeat the enemy. If we had 'engagement at range' type of game play on the higher tiers, brawling on the lower tiers and a sort of hybrid of the two on the mid tiers, I think we might be finally talking about 'fun, engaging, and diverse'. But I also want to see more diversity in the form of modes and events.

That's not how fleet engagements happen. If you want to play cat and mouse you should not use ships for that. That would make sense if this were about coastal battles or rivers and deltas. It would make sense in game modes like the Savage Battles mode we had for the Benham event. That's one of the problems with this game, excellent temporary modes giving diversity, but the main game itself being mostly dull and repetitive. To this day nobody has managed to convince me there is a good, sound, and valid reason of making a game called World of Warships which is not about how ships would actually engage and do battle in the real world. No, I am not talking about simulation type of game play because we could not have that because of time compression and multiplayer setup. However, there's a lot of factors which would increase immersion and would be possible to achieve within the arcade genre, that is, they could be implemented without making the game impossible to play as a multiplayer. The islands are a gimmick WG loves, because it means they don't have to balance the game properly or go to the trouble of introducing stealth mechanisms based on how things work in real life. Some people are happily prepared to buy that but I want them to do a proper job on it or it's #WalletClosed. I get it they are pretty, and give different maps a different feel, and there's a huge difference how maps and terrain features are implemented between different maps. As such, the way they've implemented them on the lower tier maps is in general less detrimental than what we get on the higher tiers. Also, the original map design, although having islands, were typically of much higher quality whereas most maps we got now are complete trash. Incidently, some of the maps they used for the removed operations were likewise superior even though they had islands and rock formations, because of the way they were laid out represented what you do get in real life but scaled down to fit arcade game design parameters. I want to stress this point because it illustrates that while the Ocean is the supreme map, there is a way to implement islands and rock formations the right way for a game assumed to depict naval warfare. My problem, apparently, is that I still prefer to be playing a game of warships rather than nature series or Caribbean cruises.