Karasu_Browarszky

Yeah, this is the ideal way of doing it, once you or your team has disposed of the enemy DD in your way, and if you slip detection by CV or radar. This mostly happens in 'end game' battle, so it is paramount that your DD survives till then, as DD's become more powerful the longer they survive.

The problem with long range torps is a) your target may change course unless they are idiots... (some still do not change course at all ); or b) one of the enemy screen ships spots your torps and gives a warning. Some do use islands to ambush ships, I don't personally approve of this so I call this 'dodgy'. DODGY ! The 'proper' way to do a torpedo run is you approach your target at the right angle, fire your torps, and evade. Needless to say, you can't do this if you get detected on the way. I'm still not entirely happy with this, because I somehow feel that the 'dodgy' spotting mechanics are at play here, meaning they make the torpedo run too easy to do.

It should pop up a couple of times in the next 100 years or so, so you will have an opportunity to learn.

If this counts as giggles...

Anybody happen to know if Tone is going to make it into the regular Armory section later on?

It's too bad this game is like going down the drain and the potential being lost. If things had been done right early on, we could now have a large enough player base to include number of game modes for people wanting to have different kind of play style and/or tactics. What we now have is a mess, and I think there's only probably one person here on the entire forum who is perfectly happy with the mess we got.

Opinions aren't false unless someone is lying about what they think, as I said. I'm interested in mostly hearing if what I think is factually correct or whether I'm grasping at straws. Obviously, with you that's not going to happen, and I have no idea what is the purpose of this endless verbal conga where you keep sidestepping the issue. Am I mistaken that this little routine goes on every time someone is having a discussion about potential flaws in *gasp* Wargaming game design? I say this one more time: The spotting mechanics in this game are dodgy and gimmicky (hurrah, a new word we get introduced here! ) as far as I can see (no pun intended). Someone with more knowledge of game vs real physics might either confirm this or shoot it down. The way I see it, they are heavily biased in favour of the smaller ship and only work properly (er.. non-dodgily, non-dishonestly (?) between ships belonging to the same class. Otherwise... they stink. Badly. Add to that the fact that secondaries in this game are pathetically laughable, another fact which boosts a meta that is more favourable to... smaller ships, those small, hide-in-the-smoke-fire-spewing HE spamming Smoke Warriors, or Island Huggers. The curious exception to the smaller ship bias is how the cruisers can be overmatched... at least if you manage to see them, but you only manage to see them if they make the "mistake" of playing contrary to how the WG spreadsheet says they should be. Same goes for the DD's. And probably for the CV's and BB's as well. We ain't players, we are more like lab rats caught in a maze where the smarter ones get the goodies, and others get the pain in the **** for their efforts of trying to play a naval game. And still, we got a relative overpopulation of BB's. (And.. yes, I know this is a problem so feel free not to point that out for me, okay.) Curious? No? So, what I think is that they are dodgy and gimmicky for a reason, or a set of reasons, and I think, I feel that I don't like their reasons much.

I'm not dishonest if I say what I think, unless if I were lying about what I think. Which... I wasn't. What a fascinating discussion. Not.

Getting called out for stating my opinion? Dude, we ain't in Bandit Russia.

The word is 'dodgy'. In case you missed it, I use 'dodgy' if I want to. My opinion is that the mechanics we have are dodgy. I leave it for the others here on the forum to decide for themselves how they view the spotting mechanics or not. It is apparent that with you no such discussion can be pursued.

Well, I prefer to know why one thing or another bothers me or not, and I also choose how I wish to convey my perceptions to other people here on the forum in the hope that they are able to understand what I am saying. In other words, I do reserve the right to pick and choose the words I use to describe things, including anything related to the game here on the forum, regardless of whether it matches your or anyone else's preferential vocabulary or not. If the current state of the mechanics and the game meta is to your satisfaction, that's your problem and not mine. Hop right in and go have some dodgy fun, eh.

Yes, if I have to choose one over the other, as you seemed to fail to grasp the 'dodgy' aspects. There's a reason why I disapprove of the mechanics, and it is because I find their implementation false (meaning dishonest) and fake (meaning dishonest). Again, it is 'mostly', because 'dishonest' fails to cover the other meanings that 'dodgy' implies. I didn't realise that the thread was created for vocabulary building, I thought we were discussing issues related to the game mechanics. Which is why I brought the subject up. The current implementation of spotting mechanics is what leads to effed up meta, more than any other factor in the game. IMHO.

Seems you want to miss the point. Also, I did not say 'dishonest', I said 'dodgy'. 'Dodgy', as in not only dishonest, shady, unreliable, but also something I disapprove of. So, you will discover, by using the word 'dodgy', specifically, I explicitly stated what you just claimed that I dishonestly neglected to say, which I didn't, as I used the term 'dodgy'. That should make it crystal clear.

I wonder if there's an official record how many times you manage to miss the point... .... even when the frigging point is underlined.

'Dishonest' is the meaning I mostly mean, here. Might also be the meaning 'unreliable'. The dictionary definitions aside, the issue here is that the DD's should be far more easily spotted at the sort of ranges that they become a tangible threat.

Football is the 'Beautiful Game', if it isn't clear by this point. WoWS is prolly not a 'beautiful game', and most of their camos certainly aren't...

What some people don't realize is, that unlike the rock maps that are always the same, the exact same every time you play them, the Ocean... is never same, every battle is different.

The Ocean is like a nice, clean chessboard to play on. The other maps... are like not so clean...

If ships did have a rear view mirror, you might just make out the point there.

I rarely ever see the Ocean... if they loved them, they'd let us hand pick the maps we play (like the Ocean! )

I see.. so the planes avert your 'no fly' zone, radar gets mysteriously deflected, and you never fire your guns within range... the ultimate stealth build! Saikou! Why do I get the feeling that you kind of sailed past the point... undetected.

Yeah.. crap like.. as always...

They will only get sunk if they get detected. Because of the dodgy nature of WoWS spotting mechanics, that is not guaranteed to happen.

Without the threat of CV's, the best players make the DD's effectively OP in most situations. IMO, this tells me the basic balancing in this game is very shoddy, because it is always based on some assumed optimal counter play being present, not on any kind of realistic parameters. I understand that this makes the DD's easier to play in most situations, and if they were to be balanced more realistically, it might lead to nobody playing the DD's anymore and switching to BB's instead. Maybe they should overhaul the entire game balance and implement the 'Intelligence Reports' for random BB's as well...

The only thing that puzzles me is, how come Satsuma does not have the 14 report requirement showing up in the carousel like the Hannover does...