Karasu_Browarszky

Yes, because with the removal of friendly fire (and damage) this means you can grief now at no risk or cost to yourself.

Well, now we are talking about a whole new dimension of actual griefing. Er... positive... negative... cautious uhm thumbs down?

Oh, but remember this is an arcade game.

We've seen this happen in WoT ages ago, and... it solved part of the problem, it did prevent accidental team damage, it prevent intentional damage to a degree... unfortunately griefing is still possible in some form like pushing you team mate out of cover, blocking... etc. Fortunately, I can't see how the same griefing tactics would works equally well in WoWS. There was some talk it 'dumbed down' the game, but... some aspects of the game are so lame anyway, I really can't see this making it any worse. So... a cautious positive response.

A 'destroyer leader' for a game with zero team play...

They must find it very confusing.

A bit of a round about way of doing it, if you ask me, though. The things they need to keep an eye on are: 1. Daily number of players online. 2. Daily number of battles played. 3. Number of new accounts created. 4. Revenue. Now, what worries me is they only really care about the last one... think of a Care Bear with a very thick wallet.

Yeah, it can be something sneaky, but I try to answer based on how I feel about the battle. That means I mostly use one of the three middle options.

No ship. Collection still missing most items.

Ah... so it is pretty good then.

Yeah, in a sense that might suck a bit. One of those things that would work well, though, in something like historical scenario battles. I am an advocate of 'adapted realism' I think, when it comes to WoWS. I accept that the limitations of MMO (mostly human...) in PvP limit the extent to which realism is possible, but for the reason of 'immersion' I keep wanting to see more 'tokens' or 'nods' towards realism. Like seeing the Ocean considerably more often! The thing is, in terms of the 'arcade', the game, or the mechanics don't need to be fully realistic. However, IMO, two things are needed: 1) playebility, and 2) immersion where the action at least plausibly imitates reality even if the actual mechanics involved are adjusted to arcade gaming.

That fight other CV's.

Not unless you are a level 60 wizard. By the looks of things, that's where this game is headed.

Except it is not a byproduct if you choose to fire HE at a ship. You don't do that because the arcs look pretty against the sky. You do it because you intend to light up things a bit.

A moot point, actually, I get sunk all the time, no matter how I play.

I should start experimenting with AP I think.. I do it every now and then.. with varying results. Those times I 'forget' I'm on a BB, and start playing like a DD.

Back in the day, the maxim was that with the Conqueror you make use of HE, with the Thunderer you stick to AP.

What I am questioning is that reason. I don't like passive play, I don't like stagnant play, I don't like mechanics which allow you to do score damage too easily in terms of the risk to your own ship. To sum up some of the reasons why I don't like HE. (Having your ship melt under HE is the visible result you get, but I don't think it is the root cause.) 1. It is currently needed to 'punish' passive players in those instances where it's smarter to use HE as opposed to AP. 2. It is also useful as a deterrent against 'initiative' in battle. The former has not managed to remove the element of passive play from the game, so as a counter mechanic to passive play it has failed. The latter, conversely, only promotes passive play because, for the average lot like myself, the only solution we can come up is passive play. The better players may develop winning counter tactics, but those better players seem often to be missing from your team... The alternative to passive play as a counter to HE, is team play. IMO, it's just not HE, but many other elements in the game which punish severely the team whose team play is weaker than that of the opponent. And rightly so... but... since this too, is not producing the effect of changing player behaviour, the problem persists. The real question then is, can you actually reduce adverse behaviour like passive play or lack of team play through game mechanics? While I typically only shoot HE with DD's, I've noticed the same thing about AP. Interestingly, though... I've also scored citadel hits with some HE salvos.

Yes, we know it is the smart thing to do, but the problem is that it is the smart thing to do, if you catch my drift.

If it isn't the case, why should they have switched to HE then? For the cosmetic effect?

What I meant is, if BB need to resort to using HE in any given situation over AP which is what should fire, HE is way too powerful. I don't remember who suggested removing HE from BB's completely here, but I'm actually starting to feel inclined this might be the smart option. In order to do that, though, two other things should be done 1) re-balancing the BB secondaries to compensate for the removal of HE; and 2) giving BB's a 'ballistic' shell type to fire at long to near maximum ranges at those camping red team ducks way back there on the other side of the map.

All good things come to those who wait. But with due caution.

So... in other words, the gut feeling many people seem to have that the meta was better initially seems to be correct, and WG kind of lost the plot somewhere between then and now.

I didn't. The battle ended 5 seconds before that could happen.

I just realized that my style of BB play maybe a little too unorthodox for some people here, it also includes doing doughnuts on the middle cap of some maps like the Neighbors and shooting every which way...