eliastion

In the end the thing with war is that they are not started to kill the enemy. The war is aimed at specific objectives and killing the enemies - even in WW1 - is basically done for the sole reason of stopping them from preventing you from achieving these objectives. The same, with very few exceptions, holds true for battles - if an army defends a passage to the last man and the enemy army is willing to throw away their own soldiers' lives in the attack, you're going to have a bloody battle with staggering bloody count but neither side is there to kill the enemy, the objectives are respectively - to hold the strategic choke point (perhaps to buy more time for their allies to do something) - to get through the strategic choke point If the first army really is willing to fight to the last man then the second army might need to kill everyone to fulfill their objective but it doesn't mean that killing becomes the objective. If the defenders were to surrender or retreat, allowing the attacking force to pass through, the battle would be a complete victory for the latter just as well. Killing the enemy is the most obvious method of getting them out of the way - but the objective is to get them to stop hindering them, not to kill him. If you just kill them by any means available, it means that this is what you consider to be the best (possibly most efficient) approach to the situation. So even if we do notice a war that seems to involve a hell lot of killing, actually calling it "the meta" of the war in question, while using the gaming jargon does seem inappropriate, is actually pretty on-point. Much more so than saying that killing the enemy is the objective.

What. In real war you need to kill the enemy? This is ridiculous. If anything, it would be the real-life war that's much less focused on physically eliminating the enemy and much more - on other objectives. Killing the enemy helps but more often than not it's the means to an end, not the actual objective. And even when the objective is to kill/destroy, it tends to be to kill/destroy something specific and the (other) enemies being outmaneuvered or forced to retreat so that they fail to stop you is good enough.

The main problem with answering the question of "why there are more and more one-sided matches in WoWs" is that there aren't. I've played this game since beta and if there's an increase in one-sided games, then it's a tiny one - and yet for a long time people cry that "lately there is so much more one-sided games" that if half of these complaints were half-right then the accumulated "lately it gets worse" would've long reached the point of one team spontaneously imploding during countdown. If, however, you ask "why do we see so many one-sided games", the answer is basically down to three main factors: 1. Random MM. Its implied fairness (you don't get punished for playing well) has the price of, well, randomness. If there are 3 unicums scheduled for a match, each in a different ship class, you have roughly 25% chance that they all end up on one team while the oppnent gets none. 2. Divisions. If there are 3 unicums in a division, there is roughly 100% chance that they will all end up on the same team (same with 3x 40% master tacticians) 3. (Most importantly): the snowballing nature of the game. Even if teams are evenly matched, one flank collapsing can have a disastrous domino effect. If the team loses a BB and the enemy doesn't - the enemy isn't only ahead on points, they are ahead on firepower to sink more of your ships. If your team loses a DD and the enemy doesn't, then it's not only lack of friendly DD - the enemy DDs become more dangerous and harder to sink to bring the balance back. Material losses lead to more material losses and are very often accompanied by position losses that ALSO contribute to more material losses... Basically, it can often take just two potatoes (or even decent but unlucky players) that die in quick succession on a flank for that flank to crumble and either die or retreat, leaving the rest of the team outnumbered and possibly caught in crossfire. The more advantage enemy gets, the easier it is for them to leverage it for yet more advantage still.

Well, I'm a big fan of Kitakaze with her 100mm IJN guns and her 1x6x2 (TRB) 12km torpedoes that aren't super fast and are easily spotted but can make a veery satisfying boom if they somehow connect. Obviously, the only possible answer was "both"

I don't claim this to be excessively STRONG. My general thoughts are more along the lines of "has potential to be hilariously entertaining". I mean, seriously, you can make yourself a torpedo, ram a battleship to death and potentially even live to tell the tale, how cool is that?

Guys. It's just poetry, only the formatting went wonky. If this kind of cv will be There will be a disaster for those who play And those who play against them But if they come up with it They will let it in the game regardless of The comments When the players were asked Soon never Cv has to be A catastrophe Invite friends ~Stupid

+50% speed and immortality on a DD that also has heal? I predict lots of amusing living torpedo play - appear suddenly, pop speed, ram an isolated enemy to death and pop your healing-cloaking gadget (and then scream in rage as you get picked up by 15km Radar that also nullifies your healing, but who cares, this gameplay still sounds like fun; the ultimate revenge of underage botes that almost normally provide "die hards" to any bigger enemy ship they happen to touch by mistake).

I would love to see it removed but there are enough people enjoying the effectively objective-free environment for the mode to never disappear as long as WoWs servers are still running. Sorry.

Kitakaze is awesome and by "awesome" I mean "overpowered". She's the old Akizuki but with buffed speed (what every Akizuki lover dreamed about) - this alone would make her a reasonable ship at t9 (at least before RN DDs appeared) but she also got the IJN 100mm pen. And what does it matter, exactly? Khabarovsk never relied on stealth. Old Akizuki did. Harugumo can't. Ergo - Harugumo can't play like the old Akizuki. Also, putting Harugumo in a category of "stealthy DDs" even at the last place, suggests that she is stealthy. That's... misleading. As I already explained, Harugumo's health pool is deceptive - she is much, MUCH squishier than Khaba. Yes. Which is why Harugumo - as she is now - isn't trash despite other things being so bad. Take away that effective DPS and you have a piece of crap. This strongly suggests misplay on your part. The cruisers you mention certainly more threatening than some - but that's precisely where your speed, hp and heal (to disengage, heal up and start annoying people from a more advantageous position) come to play. Harugumo has a different role. MELTING things is literally the one thing she exists for while Khaba has many other uses beyond dealing damage.

You compare Harugumo to Khaba and the old Akizuki. Let me put it this way: 1. I've played my share of Khaba, didn't like her all that much but also didn't dislike her - the only problem being that in matches with few DDs having a Khaba basically means a DD disadvantage. 2. I might well the most dedicated old Akizuki player on EU - if I don't have the most Akizuki matches on EU then I'm at least in top 5. So yes, I'm well aware that she didn't require cruiser-grade penetration on her guns. Now, newsflash: Harugumo isn't the old Akizuki and Harugumo isn't Khaba. Khabarovsk doesn't need cruiser penetration and neither did the old Akizuki - but that doesn't mean that the same can be said about Harugumo. What you miss is a couple distinct advantages of the other two ships: - Khabarovsk has armor that mitigates incoming damage significantly, heal on top of that and speed that makes her hard to hit if used well. Khabarovsk is a nightmare to kill, basically, to the point where focusing Khabarovsk (contrary to the usual see DD - kill DD instinct) is often the bad idea because Khaba will kite you, evasion tank you and then disengage if you start landing shells - Old Akizuki was a t8 DD with decent stealth, very good health pool and t10 firepower. She paid with her speed and (to lesser extent) handling but she had enough stealth to have some control over whether to engage or not and she was able to duel most higher tier DDs while being an absolute bully against lower tiers (she outspotted them due to concealment module advantage and then she melted them with Gearing-level firepower). Lower tier cruisers also were relatively vulnerable both to her HE and AP. Harugumo doesn't have these things. She gets outspotted by most DDs she could meet (at her tier only Khaba has worse concealment). She's not very fast. Her turning circle is a disaster of epic proportions. Her healthpool seems vast, yes, but it's offset by how easy she is to land a solid hit on - unlike Khaba, she has no speed and armor to avoid being damaged and no heal to recover lost hp. To put it simply: Harugumo is an absolute piece of crap. And this overall ultimate crappiness is the price she pays for her one redeeming feature: she has the firepower (both in DPM and penetration) of a light cruiser. This isn't necessarily a good design - the "let's slap another turret on that bad boy" never was a good idea anyway - but that super-penetration is, for Harugumo, a necessity to stay in the game. Even more so since Royal Navy DDs got released.

Even playing with random potatoes, losing a star is usually nothing but a case of "nobody sailed far enough to spot the last batteries before Rasputin went down".

No, then she would be utterly useless. Have you seen her concealment? Or how that piece of crap handles? Cruiser firepower is a necessity for her to stay viable. Even more so when British DDs appeared with their insane anti-DD firepower. If Harugumo was also effective only against unarmored targets, what exactly would be the purpose of her existence in a game that has Daring? Anyway, though, this is offtop for the thread about BB AP.

I'm not sure about Harugumo (since she just has huge HP pool) but one of the special traits of Khabarovsk is that she has some relevant armor. This is a big advantage of her (she can bounce pretty big shells with that) but also one of her pronounced weaknesses (she can arm big shells when showing broadside). Removing the possibility of suffering more than 10% damage from big guns would get rid of the drawback while keeping the advantage that no other DD enjoys. This change is effectively "every pen is an overpen" kind of a deal and a DD that explicitly has the weakness of inviting full penetrations due to thick plating isn't well suited for the benefits. As for Harugumo, I think it would be a better idea to nerf her health a bit (if she were to be deemed too resilient after the change) but then again - Harugumo is a strange beast that is uncommonly for a DD strong against cruisers. It's not really that bad of an idea to make her, in turn, uncommonly weak to BB fire.

Torpedo DPM is a useless stat and comparing Błyskawica's torps to DWTs of PA line is a joke - don't count on scoring on regular basis anywhere near the amount of torpedo damage you can expect from GM. She has reasonably fast reloading torps but they are too slow, too weak and there's too few of them to let you rely on them. What's more, Błyskawica's stealth is abysmal, further reducing usefulness of her torps. They are there and they are certainly usable... but that's about it. Błyskawica has decent speed (she used to have great speed but got powercreeped), good hp and reasonable guns with good alpha and rear-focused (4 out of 7 barrels point back) making her a pretty good kiter if someone takes the bait. Overall, Błyskawica isn't exactly a bad ship but there's just nothing special about her. If you want to have fun at t7, you're better off taking (out of the DDs actually played) Gadjah Mada (for many reasons) or Shiratsuyu (for 16 torps on t7). And if you want a speedy gunboat then probably Lenningrad, although I don't have that one. Anyway, Błyskawica doesn't really have anything special to offer and when it comes to versatility - her stealth undercuts it heavily. Oh, and we're talking t7, the tier where DDs really suffer if they aren't top tier DDs because t8+ DDs have the huge advantage of concealment module that makes Błyskawica's already bad stealth into abysmal category (by comparison with t8 DDs, of course, it doesn't literally get worse).

Well, I'd say it's actually quite possible. Of course you'd need to - be a good player - make the most use out of any credit-making and credit-saving camos and signals you acquire from missions and achievements - make sure that you don't use unnecessary premium consumables (premium defensive AA with so few carriers? Take basic hydro instead) Breaking even should be possible and even if you do lose some credits over the time, you should be able to make up for that with missions, containers and extra event rewards. You'd probably need an extra credit supply to upgrade the ship and equip it at the start, but once the big initial spending is over, simply not going broke by playing really shouldn't be out of reach. And if you actually earn (Ranked, CBs, supercontainers) enough doublons to finally get yourself that perma camo, then you're basically set for life. It doesn't mean that playing tX exclusively while also running 100% f2p is very comfortable economically, of course. Or that anyone can do it. So yes, it is designed so that people do some lower tier play too. But it doesn't mean that it's impossible to avoid that. Then again, while I do happen to play tX with no economic gold crutches, it's also been a long time since I had any sort of credits problem so I don't exactly count every credit when playing something less profitable.

Try knocking three times into unpainted wood and spitting trough left shoulder before each session. Works just as well as buying premium*, is much cheaper (it doesn't need to be a big piece of wood or some expensive variety) and even can be applied to random things unrelated to WoWs! *lets you experience sudden jump in better MM and dispersion as long as you believe it does

Your situation seems... strange, to say the least. Your results don't seem that bad, you're playing PvP and you're not playing tX exclusively - frankly, I'm baffled. Things that come to mind, however: 1. Re-think your premium consumable choices. Perhaps you don't need all of them to be premium, especially when playing lower tier? I don't know for sure if you're running all-premium but frankly - splurging on every consumable to be premium is basically the only way I can imagine to actually end up having problems with breaking even with your stats at t8 and below. 2. Do play lower tier. Not in the sense "low tier good for money" since you literally don't play t10 and t9 right now, more like "maxed out t6-8 ships good for money". Just because you grinded a ship to the elite status doesn't mean that you should let the thing rust in port or get rid of it - if you have fun playing a ship, keep playing that ship (that way you play a ship you like and earn credits with nothing to spend them since you're not researching anything new by playing the ship in question). Although there's little purpose in going below t5 - especially if you want any consumables premium, because the earnings scale with tier and consumable cost doesn't. 3. Assuming that you don't want to spend real money (and assuming your Aigle doesn't suit you), consider buying a free-XP or coal premium ship for the purpose of earning money with it (although considering your problems, I'm inclined to suppose that you made the unfortunate choice of blowing your hard-earned freeXP on moving through tiers faster - so you might be lacking resources for such purchase atm). Beyond that, it's hard to say what you should be doing. Basically, on the tiers you are normally playing (up to t8) it's normally quite rare to lose money, even on a defeat. Your problems are normally reserved for people who stick exclusively to t9+ play and/or who try to research a lot of things as fast as possible...

The problem being - you're being a *edited* by doing that. It's like going to the park, blowing your nose and throwing the used tissue on the grass by the side of the path, because that's the convenient thing to do. It's not that there's any lasting harm in that, a used paper tissue is basically harmless, but by doing so you display complete lack of consideration for fellow park users - since you're clearly not the only person that goes there. And some basic consideration for other people is basically what separates a decent human being from a nasty piece of trash. It's normally recommended to try and stay on the right side of this line.

Well, I explained why and how things would get worse - it's your choice if you prefer to not believe it (or believe but hold onto the hope that things getting worse would actually lead to them getting better). I'll stand by my opinion, though

No. Right now these people are driven to speak up by frustration alone - there's literally nothing they can expect their teamkilling victim to do. It would no longer hold true, however. With the option to "forgive", the unrepentant teamkillers would have an actual demand to make (and get even more mad when the victim doesn't comply). It would be a catalyst for their toxicity because they would then feel to be doubly wronged (since they are wholeheartedly convinced that it's their victim that's in the wrong).

It's completely unneeded, though. Occasionally dealing team damage (even to the point of blasting a teammate right to the port) can happen but the effect of that is, as you described: being pink. If you don't have a really bad (and recent) history of such "incidents" you're green again within 3-5 matches. There's no real consequence beyond a paltry credits and XP penalty. Implementing a specific mechanic allowing people to "pardon" the teammates that struck them takes resources, and adds complications to the system - what, for example, should happen if you get pardoned while in a new match already? What with potential reflected damage in the meantime? Or, for that matter, should the person struck by your torps be able to pardon you when you blow yourself up instead because you were pink already? But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the system gets implemented. The benefits for the community are negligible (the people who deserve to be pardoned usually get pink very rarely AND their benefit is that when they do, they MIGHT be spared these couple pink matches IF they encounter a "victim" willing to use the option). However, the option would have an effect appearing MUCH more often. But this effect, unfortunately, would look more like this: Chat message: YOU EDIT NOOB, I SAID IN CHAT I WAS TORPING, WHY AREN'T YOU CLICKING "FORGIVE" WHEN IT'S YOUR FAULT FOR RUNNING INTO MY TORPS or Forum thread: Pink insanity: griefers abuse the teamkilling penalty system by running into friendly torps on purpose and not clicking "forgive" afterwards or Support ticket: I clearly torped him by mistake, aiming at the enemy, but I still became pink and didn't get pardoned, please fix Call me a cynic, but I'm almost certain that things like these would be the most noticeable and tangible effect of having a "teamdamage forgiving" option. Even now we have a portion of people who feel wronged when they get pink for torping an ally. Imagine how entitled these players would feel if the victim actually had an option to "admit their fault" in getting teamkilled. And how enraging for the "special teammates" it would be when, predictably, most victims prove less than willing to make use of such option.

Unfortunately not. *edited* so that clan and division chats are included while (this I might be wrong about but probably am not) quick commands and map spamming go through so a chat-banned person can still annoy the hell out of their teammates. But I think at least the second problem was at least acknowledged as something that should make the TODO list, so there's hope for at least some improvements. I would proudly wear it as a clan tag How many people have told you that the auto-chatban isn't for "saying something bannable" but for accumulation of reports over time? We don't assume. We read what you write. Your behavior here and your chatban are consistent and it just seems much more likely that you behave similarly in game and it gets on people's nerves - the alternative (that you behave great in game chat but still get regularly banned for literally no reason) just doesn't seem convincing in comparison. And nobody just cares enough to watch a couple hours of your replays to get definite proof. Oh, not without proof. And nobody even really accused you. Let me put it this way: 1. A guy wakes up in the morning, not remembering the previous night, his head hurts. His breath stinking of alcohol, he explains that he only drank a little and thus doesn't understand why his head might hurt. 2. People tell him that he probably didn't drink nearly as little as he believes. 3. He gets mad at them for accusing him of being a drunkard without full police investigation; in the meanwhile he downs a bottle to calm himself. That's more or less how this looks to us. We're explaining to you that what got you chatbanned stems from your behavior - and you refute that, but, at the same time, you show of saltiness that seems to be a perfect report magnet, making the explanation seem all the more likely. If you really want people to analyze these chat contents of yours, you can try and put in the work to provide transcripts of chat contents for a bunch of consecutive matches. But demanding that people put in that work when you react with hostility to any attempt at explaining to you how the system gets people chatbanned? Why would anyone spare the effort, really? Especially since, take note, people here don't claim to know what you said in all these matches. They claim that whatever it was, it got people angry and that's how you get reported - MANY TIMES - which is how you got banned. This is just the explanation of the workings of the system. Your more or less consistent toxicity - as subjectively perceived by your fellow players - is simply inferred from the fact that you end up reported on regular basis. Although admittedly - getting out of this mess might take some serious effort and persistence, since the system seems to have a memory and currently it takes less reports to get a chatban than is the case for someone with more or less clean record (so even a randomly misclicked report or a you-killed-me-so-I-report-you incident aren't as harmless as they would be for an average player). Anyway, if you don't want to believe us - don't. It's your choice whether to believe that you have some impact on receiving reports or not. But raging on Forum that you're getting unjust chatbans most certainly won't solve your problem, that I can tell you already.

So, you want me to waste time watching your replays... for what, exactly? I mean, what's in it for me to put in so much effort? I told you what your problem is - you're getting people angry. If you don't believe me, tell me, why do they report you? You claim report abuse, but that means many different people abusing the report function to get at you... almost as if they actually were angry at you? And sorry to say, but your results, while decent, don't exactly paint you as one of these unicums that vehemently claim that their chatbans are retaliation for playing well and sinking people. No, sorry, I might not be good enough to call them out on their excuses but I'm certainly good enough to say that at your level of play *edited* You also don't seem to be bad enough to be harassed by significant number of "misbehavior" reports in place of more relevant "bad play" - and that basically leaves the very thing the report is about: you're saying things in chat that get people angry enough to report you for exactly that. Which means that they are using the report system right instead of abusing it. What's more, even without watching your games, it's not like we here have nothing to go on. Frankly, I really don't need your games to get an idea what a nasty personality you exhibit when your emotions run high. The way you're responding in this very thread is enough to give us a taste. It's blatantly obvious how you communicate under pressure - and if you're anything like this in game, that's enough to give us a pretty good idea of why you end up being reported - and consequently chatbanned. Something like the opening line in the quote, for example (wouldn't make sense in the context of the game but I'm talking the tone) would be enough for some people to report you. Hell, if I was stressed about a game going badly, even I might be one to spare a report on someone talking like this - because being stressed doesn't only make people behave more rudely, it also makes them more trigger-happy when it comes to reporting. Basically, in this thread you sound exactly like the person that is "a pain in the stern regularly, again and again, match after match" - and you being regularly chat-banned suggests that it's not just a false impression despite being based solely on your posts within this one thread. You can reflect and try to chill out a bit - or you can keep believing that you don't provoke these reports in any way and it's just your bad luck and "report system abusers" that for some mysterious reason always target you that are the true reason for your chat-bans. Frankly, I don't care nearly enough to put in any serious work to try and change your mind. And this, unfortunately, includes watching your replays. That's why, unfortunately, you're going to be left on your own with finding out where and when exactly you pissed people off enough to get reported. Unless someone else here has more patience (and too much time on their hands) and wants to do that for you.

I see your problem. Well, one of your problems, at least. You believe that you were banned for that match. That's not true. You were banned for being a pain in the stern regularly, again and again, match after match. Getting an automatic chat-ban isn't a one-off issue for one match. And this is also where the defense against report abuse is built into the system. It doesn't take one angry kid or even a division of angry kids to get you banned - you need to be reported repeatedly by many people (only one report per person per match counts). And if someone is getting reported all the time - that means that he isn't a victim of report abuse, it means that he's toxic enough to compel lots and lots of people to report him. I don't know what exactly you say to get all these people to report you. But perhaps your sarcastic comments aren't as innocuous as you consider them to be. Perhaps people consider them toxic and believe that you should shut up - and if people believe that you should shut up often enough, you end up gagged by the auto-chatban. That's the self-regulating nature of such systems. You aren't chat-banned because a mod reviewed your responses and decided that you broke some rules. You're chat-banned because there is enough of a consensus that you are toxic and deserve it. If you think it's your sarcastic comments, well - perhaps you should cut down on them because, well, it would seem that your fellow players don't appreciate them much.

Let me first answer just the thread title. Yes, fire in this game is overrated - in the sense that lots and lots of bad players believe it to be much more powerful than it is. As for the other issue you bring up... Are you really supposed to see everyone perfectly through a solid island or over the horizon? Spotting for your team in this game is pretty simple: if the enemy is spotted by anyone and within your render range, you see that enemy. If you want to remove that, you'd be dealing with enemy DDs that only appear once YOU spot them in your precious BB. Which would usually mean "not at all". You'd be seeing only their torpedoes. I'm sure you'd love that, right? Especially if the maneuverability of ships was also nerfed to more realistic values...