EdiJo

I got a few hundred of those from some Santa boxes I think and from supah containers. I use them on BB because those few percent of dispersion/concealment doesn't matter much. Ugliness is solved by using the "own camo for each ship" mode from Aslain pack - it is a bit hard to judge in the game who has which camo, but everything looks much better ;)

Lemminging is quite strong vs "random team" if it is a surprise. Suddenly ships on one flank are overrun and die and if enough force can't gather fast enough to stop incoming "formation" the game is over. There is no time to start a diversion which will slow down/disperse the train or just win the game faster on the other side of the map. But if there is a scouting CV, lemminging suddenly is a very weak strategy. One can use the situation that most of enemy ships are gathered in a single flank, and if enemy DD are contained by skilled CV a tight pushing force is very good target for own unspotted DD.

This is what SubOctavian said. But without strafing for example Zuiho has no chance even vs single Bogue even if that Bogue is not "fighters-only". US fighters always win with minimal losses. And expecting "to hide from T6 behind your T6" on a small T5-T6 map is the opposite of pleasurable gaming, fun, and fair play - which WG always stated is their main goal, lol.

This is relatively recent change - was introduced in 0.6.3 which went live on 30 March, so only ~3 weeks ago.

Exactly. You have typically only 1 CV (or 1 stronger CV in a pair). If you (de facto) don't have the whole class in your team, it is much bigger problem, than not having 1 of 5 BB. Almost the same impact has having potato DD in a low-DD domination game. No scouting -> randoms tend to camp -> points are ticking for the enemy -> game over. this is one bad player, but he is 100% of carriers in your team. Enemy has CV, you don't. And "old dudes" (lol, I am one ) or "some kids" should be just enjoying the co-op mode vs bots instead of jumping into PvP without having a clue what to do. I recall myself whining a lot about "OP carriers" - maybe they were not nerfed, maybe then less potatos played them, maybe I just didn't know how to counter them. Maybe all of those mixed together. And bots? Some are strong players, compared to randoms... for example widely known Bot_3 The only "coordination" in random games is the lemming train. And a good CV player will easily exploit the weakness of such "formation". Finishes potato-CV first, then spots and/or kills isolated DD, then feeds on isolated targets. And in the meantime provides information to his team about where the train is going, so it is easy to break "the pushing spirit" by capping other points in domination or threatening their own base in standard. Randoms, which typically would camp or scratch the borders are usually playing much better when they know exactly where the enemy is and when enemy DD are contained or killed

Even you being super-purple-unicum have solo avg dmg in all your T6 cruisers well below 60k - with most closer to 40-50k. I would say that in T6 cruiser 63k game is a VERY good game. Especially in the current meta, when you meet lots of BB, also in T6 carriers are clubbing now, and very often you get T8 matchmaking. Especially in a lost game, when you are typically without much support because your potato "team mates" die like flies around you. I had such a frustrating streak last weekend, when I could not get my daily win in a Belfast, despite having calibers, confederates, top scores and such. 5 losses in a row, at 80-110k damage.

When finally WG agrees to remove this broken +/-2 tier matchmaking Yamato whining that his T8's could not give him a proper backup? It looks that in this game simply all high tiers avoided equal fight and bullied lower tiers of the opposite team Why is so unexpected that Carolina vs Shima + Yamato did worse than Yamato + Gearing vs Carolina?

No wonder Soviets felt like at home there. Whole Soviet cruiser line, starting from Kirov, was based on the Italian design. Duca even looks almost exactly like a mini-Shchors You have one: it is called Kutuzov.

Nobody needs to "deserve" to be in the online digital ship arcade. You don't need to "claim" you are or are not "a casual" - you're just not, judging by amount of time spent. I'm not flaming, just stating an opinion here & there - if you are feeling "flamed" because you can't find an argument... not my fault. I don't talk about 'elite' - I am far from elite myself: don't have T10, don't play in divisions, don't have clan, didn't grind ranked etc etc. and my stats are very varied ;) Regarding "competitive" - if you don't want to be competitive, why do you enter competitive PvP game mode? My guess would be, because rewards are larger. That's why I propose here to increase rewards in PvE, so "non-competitive" players could happily play vs bots and not ruin fun for those who (being better or weaker) want to compete with humans. But then PvP part needs a protection from "PvE veterans" jumping over - that's why there needs to be a ladder of test missions, which would stop those who didn't learn enough from entering higher tiers of PvP games. Nothing against those people (or you) - and nothing about "deserving" here. One just needs some level of understanding the game to play competitively, and it is an obvious fact... Playing in T5 is not 'worse' than playing T10. And if PvE would give the same rewards as PvP, I am sure much more people would be in PvE part of the game. Again nothing wrong or weak. Some play to compete, some don't. Just calm, and don't feel insulted if someone looking at your results notices that you jumped into competitive T9-T10 games before you were ready.

Do you have anything to say? Or you will just now follow me from thread to thread and hopelessly try to insult? BTW, you are quite good example of the problem: 12000 games, during last 6 months you on average spent 6 hours per day in this game - yet you are still significantly below server average in all stats. Probably you would not have passed some of those missions, and your >50% win rate stops at Tier IV... Yet you reached Tier 10, and I do more dmg in a Bogatyr than you in DesMoines Ofcoz I imagine "testing" PvP as well And this would certainly restrict potatos who bought themselves a premium from "just-jumping" into high tiers without having any clue what's going on. No "exam" passed? - sorry: co-op only. Yup. This is the problem which should be addressed. But those are most often "paying customers", so that's why WG is tolerating the situation. WG business model is that they want everybody to spend as much time in T8-T10 as he/she can afford. Lower tiers serve as "the environment" for others to grind to T9-T10. An intermediate stage is T6-T7 where premium ships harvest some money...

PvE should be a viable alternative for "casuals" or for those who "just wanna listen to gun sounds" and "swim around a bit". Or for those who have too unstable connection to play PvP. Too many hopeless potatos are pushing to higher tiers in competitive games - and why? Because they can. All the problem with co-op rewards is that advancing in PvE absolutely should not enable to progress in PvP If we don't want to introduce separate "monetary systems" I would like to see just a ladder of missions - exams needed to pass to the next tier in PvP. You can grind in co-op & buy yourself a Yamato, or you can buy a Tirpitz from the shop - just without completing the exam mission you only can play co-op with that ship. There should be separate mission ladder for each ship line in each nation. So, unless you finished "German T8 BB" quest you can't play your Bismarck in random, team or ranked. Missions can give rewards, of course, and maybe one should be able to periodically repeat them for a reward just to help WG tuning the difficulty. Eh, dreaming. For now, WG evidently just wants every potato to grind without any obstacle, as fast as possible, to "profitable" T9-T10...

No. Currently the "idling rule" is void, not enforced in any way. We meet AFK-ers, quitters, slow loaders every day. We need an automated solution, and this is what we can propose here.

1. I am not talking about SERVER stability. I wrote it a few times above. Please read before commenting 2. If my kids cry "not now, dad, I will be banned if disconnect now!" - I either let them finish the game, or we have to accept they will be banned, because we value "real-life" over the game. 3. You are certainly not a "casual player" : 4000 games in last 200 days = more than 6 hours/day, Monday-Sunday, no free days taken... (assuming you did not disconnect too heavily ). It is rather me who is a "weekend warrior" and I just want to have fun during my rare short periods of free time...

I don't know where you're taking your "statistics" from about how many people want/don't want to eliminate idling players. If you read what I wrote, this "harder punishment" is not whipping nor death penalty but just temporary blocking from entering random/ranked games leaving a chance to fix the issues in co-op or training room. In every game where I meet an AFK-er, general opinion is that this is a disease and should be cured. You have different experience? Your teammates typically like having AFK player in their team? Or love having a DD or two waking up a few minutes after the game started and enemy started capping long ago? Don't think so. I'm not "punching in the face" - but maybe you understand simple logic this way. 1 neglecting AFK-er vs 23 guys who just want to have a fair game. Regarding "reporting to WG and they will investigate" - are you kidding or what? This "report" mechanism is just for "venting the frustration" and has ZERO consequences whatsoever. It is abused, too general, too subjective. It is so known fact that I don't know why you mention it at all. Regarding "not a game for a few hardcore" - I am not talking (now) about skill issue. I am talking about ruining the game for multiple other players just by (choosing to) not participating at all. And you are mistaken - many online games or game servers have strict rules against disconnecting or idling, and it is only the question of establishing how strict the control needs to be. The sooner you will accept it the better.

This conversation wouldn't have taken place at all, because nobody is so brave to stand up his 20+ neighbours from local football team 60 times in a month... In the anonymous "Internet" - no problem at all: "it's only a game dude!" "I have no control over those buses dude!" or "My car sometimes just stops working and the only thing I control in it is the steering wheel"

T5-T6 could be Renown/Repulse (depending on refit stage) T7 could be just re-fitted version of the Nelson. T8 - KGV class only T9-T10 would be of paper, because this was the stage when BB production was stopped in the UK. I'm still not sure whether Hood should be T6 or T7... We'll see how she will work ;)

I find it offending you assume that I don't meet such "it's only a game - hgbn_dk's" in my games. Yes, I am speaking for myself too - I am too frequently p***ed instead of having fun because apart from usual "casual potatoing" there is a number of "happily offline" losers who "don't care". I don't even count DD loading in domination mode 2-3 minutes after everybody else started moving... Once again. Your connection + your decision to join multiplayer game = your responsibility. You can't do anything about your net = you don't join. What is so hard in that to understand, dude?

^^^ this is what I wrote (tentatively...) at the beginning I don't know how long you were disconnected each time - we are talking here about frequent disconnecters/quitters/afkers and such stuff. You started defending them, citing "60/month" and ridiculing "it's only a game" - now you are retracting. We're not talking about speed of the connection. MMO games usually don't need big bandwidth - the problem is latency and stability. Megabits have nothing to do with "not failing", this is only one (less important for gaming) part of the story. If your connection randomly drops 60 times/ month, it is just not a good enough situation to play online in team competitive modes. In many cases it is perfectly fixable, there may be many causes accessible to you. If the problem is really external, it is up to you to negotiate with your provider...

Ok. One more time, because you seem to be impervious to logic or just can't read. -> YOU are one (1) player -> 60 times a month you don't join or quit a game which has 23 other people in it -> you ruin the competitive game for ~1400 people every month. Even if quite a part of them doesn't care much (like you) - you still spoil the fun for hundreds. -> You don't care that you do that Regarding your connection: -> YOU choose the company which is "behind your router" -> YOU choose not to change this company and to join games knowing that this company sucks -> it is your own problem. Eventually ask your daddy to fix it , if "having no authority" is the issue. -> Many people play even using "mobile" LTE, in Europe it is not a big problem. If you can't solve your connection problem, you shouldn't enter multiplayer games requiring real-time actions and constant presence. WG has nothing to do with this - apart from possible introducing temp-bans and bot-replacements we were writing about in this thread. We're not talking about SERVER issues, or client BUGS. Those affect multiple players in the same time, are known independently and usually quite soon fixed.

No, mister. Mindlessly repeating "it's just a game" doesn't change the simple fact, that YOU don't care about ruining competitive 20-minutes for 1400 other guys every month. It's not about "skill", it is about PARTICIPATING at all. If you join, you take someone's place in a team. Matchmaking (better or worse) tries to equalize ships in both teams - but it can't take into account quitters or AFK-ers. It is not about stats - it is about wasting my time, which is supposed to give me fun, not irritation because either my team loses because of some moron who can't fix his net connection or my team stomps on the enemy because the moron happened to be their "member". I am not so happy about my 'stats' rising because I see AFK-ers or braindead potatos in the enemy team... Anyway many stomped games give little XP to almost anyone because they are so short/onesided

Replacing AFK-er/quitter with a bot would be OK - some bots (Bot_3?) are way smarter than average Joe ;) But anyway frequent offenders should be temp-banned otherwise they just don't care. And egoists always think that it is the whole other world who is selfish - because it doesn't enough care about the egoist's problems ;)

1. You don't too. And you ruin a game for 23 people because YOU have problems. If that's not egoist approach, dunno what is. 2. Not only you. 3. It is YOUR connection, so it is YOUR problem. I wont go and fix it for you. You don't have Internet access - you don't play Internet games. Simple enough? 4. So get off my games, otherwise I can tell you what NOT to do. No. This is whining. You have a problem and are making it a problem of ~60x23 = ~1400 other people every month. "I have no control over this, boooo!!!!". Yes, you have. Fix your network hardware, change the provider, whatever. And just don't try to enter competitive games before you do that...

Shot down planes? Spotting dmg? They tried to hit you and missed so you got 2 million of potential dmg? Ramming? Or maybe someone pushed you into a cap?

OMG. Again the same stupid whining. "It's only a game"? So DON'T PLAY IT IF YOU CAN'T. How hard is it to understand? If you crash once, or it is a real server issue, confirmed by MANY other players IN THE SAME TIME - sure. But not if you crash a few times a day and do NOTHING about it, "because it's only a game, so f**k those 23 other people"... Don't reduce the problem ad absurdum. Not "everyone who gets disconnected" but those who FREQUENTLY get idle, quit or crash. Does not matter AT ALL whether it is because of "technical reasons". Effect is the same, such players should be temporarily eliminated, until they fix THEIR hardware + software + network connection. Once a month is not a big problem. I would think of starting penalties at the level of 20-30 incidents per week. Then it should result in a week ban from competitive modes, allowing only co-op and training room which should allow to fix eventual "technical problems". After repeated "crashing period" - ban should be exponentially longer. It is really not hard to detect server disconnects / AFK-ing or intentional idling... Temporary ban from competitive modes only. First from ranked games, then from the rest. Simple and fair. Geez, dude. Fix your things first instead of neglecting your stuff and spoiling fun for others. Your whining "I am disconnected 60 times/month, booooooo"!!! doesn't concern me. This is your own problem, until you fix it - just get off my games: