Karasu_Browarszky

The only way to make sure of this is to only fire torps when you are the sole ship closest to the enemy and only fire your torps in opposite direction of you team's position on the map. That means, no firing of torps towards flanks, or in the vicinity of friendly ships.

Hmm... I can think how reckless spamming could distract others, and those torps would mostly go to waste. The real question is, would these people otherwise make better use of their torps or are they just waste of team slots regardless?

The net result of this is actually hurting your own game, regardless of if you get banished or not. You are essentially wasting your torps for nothing. Yeah, that would be my suspicion too for the reason. The thing is, you can anticipate player actions to a degree, but you can't (always) expect them to do something crazy (though you should...) and suddenly go where you didn't expect them to go. The margins have been narrow enough, as it is. The good thing is, the innocent team mate won't suffer the damage, the bad thing is that the suggested new form of punishment will narrow the margins. The only 'safe' option to use torps has always been front line, and that won't change. However, even in front line you may have another fast moving DD which can change course or speed and suddenly wind up in your path, depending on how close you are to your target or how close your team mate is to you, and what is their position in regard to your target and yourself. While the change in the mechanic (removal of FF damage) is something I don't consider 'dumbing down the game', it is just one step further from reality, and not really the most relevant departure from reality the game takes, incidentally... but the real reason it can lead to dumbing down the game is because it reduce people's willingness to take even the slightest, calculated risk with their torps meaning it will further diminish the tactical element in the game.

Yeah... especially since they changed the ranked format, those flags are now out of my reach....

Alaska and Kronstadt are both very strong for cruisers.

Yes, there's no denying that punishing that kind of sitting duck players for not moving around can be very satisfying. Yup. It gets better if your team manages to sink the enemy DDs who are the 'clear and present threat' to BB's in mid map areas. Not just because of their weapons, but because they can remain dark and transmit your positions to the cruisers and BB's further back, essentially even beyond your own range at times. Incidentally, the spotting mechanics are one of my least favourite bits in WG games, because there's no frigging other way to explain them except as an unrealistic gimmick. When that threat is either completely removed or greatly reduced, the game proper can finally start. Provided, of course, you manage to survive that long. One safe, but incredibly questionable tactic would be to simply wait out and see if your team manages to do that, and only then commit to battle.

Haven't played it for nearly 30 years... No, I'd prefer to play dynamic tactical play. World of Floating Islands doesn't really cut it except in about 2 per cent of the battles which is really very rare. I don't want to play a game in order to get bored out of my wits. For that I can always party political broadcasts.

The bots play too well.

First, the only way for me to learn those mechanics is to have them all printed and itemized on paper, in a thick volume for me to leaf over. Even then, though, I'd struggle to learn something that plainly runs counter to common sense. Furthermore, why would I want to learn the dullest possible way of playing a game there is?

From my perspective, it tells me there are serious flaws with the game design, but some people seem to actually like it this way. It's a funny old world.

Not a bad suggestion at all, I've always liked using gauges to set the firing coordinates... others here, though... Office software... so they designed a game you can comfortably play holding a coffee mug in your left hand... figures... Spot on analysis you given us, I think, btw. Yeah...'good players'. That is what I call 'incredibly bad play' and conversely it is what gets them the results they have.... Ocean is the greatest! It's like... The Ocean.

The really sad part is there shouldn't even be a mechanic needed to make people move in a ship game..

True, it might be also be set to work 'in class' meaning between ships belonging to the same class. Er... just no, sorry. That would make it completely asymmetrical, also OP's idea was not based on range but on speed. The improved dispersion would have to apply against stationary targets in order to effectively 'force' them to keep moving.

Must be really far days then, because nowadays you don't really even have time to notice the torps are coming from your rear when you hear the alarm....

Could it be they know their maps are way too small? Or is there some sneaky underhanded psychobabble reasoning at play?

Correct. Correct. It is much more fun IMO to have battles where the ships are constantly maneuvering and the battle is conducted in a dynamic fashion. Personally, I haven't the foggiest why so many in the community love the stagnant game play so much, unless that is part of the 'arcade' gaming or something. Correct. Those who like to play chess, could go and play chess. With ship shaped pieces. I'm not sure if there is currently any mechanic that takes into account if the target is stationary or not. Based on the game play, I think there isn't which is very counterintuitive. Logically, as you keep firing at a stationary target, your aim/dispersion should dramatically improve with every shot fired. (Minus the fact that you are yourself moving as otherwise it would defeat the purpose of the mechanic...).

Oh, interesting. The word 'Tropical camo' in WoWS does not suggest any real navy camo pattern to me, but I tried to google a bit. Didn't find a clear image, but found some picture/images on these sites. Is that the actual 'Tropical camo' in question? https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/end-battleship-hms-prince-wales-repulse-sunk-10th-december-1941.html https://www.world-war.co.uk/forcez.php https://www.paulooimodelworks.com/empires-sunset-the-destruction-of-force-z-マレー沖海戦/

But usually not those on the red team...

T6 is nowadays good for... casual mid tier play or operations. You just need one of those ships that are easy to handle and fun to play to make most of that. In this sense, a lot will depend on how the Repulse will meet those criteria, I think.

J24 Seems to be number belonging to the cancelled Halland class DD Lappland.

? It's one of the nicer ships out there...

Now all we need is HMS Prince of Whales!

Noice, but somehow I think this is too complex for WG to implement. The sledgehammer, remember, the only tool you'll ever need in Russia, comrade!

Well, one explanation that comes to mind is... botting. That might explain some of the FF I've encountered which does not seem like it's rage motivated, but seems like utterly stupid mistakes to make, like firing torps at a ship right next to you.

When you put it like that it sounds like being careful will prevent you from being griefed, however... you have to ask yourself what is the point? With the FF removed there is no team damage, why add another mechanism to encourage people not to fire torps or guns at their team mates? What is the design purpose? Also, this means people will more likely not fire at all at enemy ships which are too close to friendly ships.