Culiacan_Mexico

This is what WG says. ------------------------------------------------------------------- GAME MODES Random Battle (Human Players) This enters your chosen ship into the queue to be matched with human allies against other human players; missions can be completed when fighting in Random Battles. Co-op Battle (Bots + Human Players) This enters your chosen ship into the queue to be matched with human and bot allies against other bot players; missions cannot be completed when fighting in Co-Op Battles. Also, you'll earn less Experience and Credits in Co-op Battles compared to Random Battles. Ranked Battle (Human Players) This enters your chosen ship into the queue to be matched with human allies against other human players; missions cannot be completed when fighting in Ranked Battles.

Much of what is learned in Co-Op does not transfer to Random, the game play is very different.

Players can play as they wish, but their actions are not in a vacuum. Their choices effect other players. They seem so preoccupied with whether they can play as the wish, they didn't stop to think if they should play as they wish in a team game.

This is true.

Devils Advocate: I can't trust my team mates to play their ships well, but I am suppose to trust them to know who actually played poorly or who played well?

Currently in ranked, team play by DDs out weights personal performance, but that system would work differently, and would mean DD players should play very selfishly. Skirt the map and go for damage. I don't have to win because I know in most cases the enemy team will have a player that is worse than me... will score lower. I can get that seventh spot from the opposing players, as long as no one on my team does better than me. Every member of my team that has a poor game means my odds of getting a star are increased. This game mode would force me to actively work against my competitors... my own team. I could get to rank one without ever have won a game... using sabotage. This would go toxic very quickly. IMO

Defensive smoke still works. Mostly.

So, victory is unimportant. DD players are better off not scouting or screening? Defensive smoke... why, a dead teammate is one less competitor.

How can this be fun? Now can losing 3 out of 4 games be fun? Beyond me.

It seems like it is tied up in a number of issues. 1. "...Bug..." 2. "...BB AP -> light armored targets damage balancing..." 3. "...other problems when we update ballistics model..." It sounds like it is a major undertaking. ------------------------------------------------ Sub_Octavian Posted August 15, 2017 Hello. This is definitely a bug and mechanics not working as intended. An AP shell shouldn't deal more than regular pen damage to a DD, as DDs don't have citadel. Thanks for submitting this case, we have several more similar reports, and understand the problem. This case should be solved along with other problems when we update ballistics model - which is included in actual development plan with high priority. Hopefully it will be done with BB AP -> light armored targets damage balancing, which was also requested. I am sorry for this clearly bad experience. P.S. As far as I know, overconfidence is not a trade mark, at least I did not register it, but I have no objections if you do.

If WG used that rational for why detonation are in game then that is one thing, but they do not. Instead they say, "From the game design PoV, they are also needed."

I would hope not.

...and the odds of that happening with the average BB player?

Players who do poorly when they first start out is expected and normal, while those who fail to have any reasonable improvement in game play over an extended period is another issue. The difference in players is not brain power, age or experience in gaming, but in commitment to succeed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1968 Olympic marathon While competing in the marathon in Mexico City, Akhwari cramped up due to the high altitude of the city. He had not trained at such an altitude back in his country. At the 19 kilometer point during the 42 km race, there was jockeying for position between some runners and he was hit. He fell badly wounding his knee and dislocating that joint plus his shoulder hit hard against the pavement. He however continued running, finishing last among the 57 competitors who completed the race. The winner of the marathon, Mamo Wolde of Ethiopia, finished in 2:20:26. Akhwari finished in 3:25:27, when there were only a few thousand people left in the stadium, and the sun had set. A television crew was sent out from the medal ceremony when word was received that there was one more runner about to finish. As he finally crossed the finish line a cheer came from the small crowd. When interviewed later and asked why he continued running, he said, "My country did not send me 5,000 miles to start the race; they sent me 5,000 miles to finish the race."

That is all rather depressing. If an average +50 year old, with limited gaming experience and a declining brain can play 'quick paced destroyers' fairly well... why can't in general, some of those under the age of 27 with lots of gaming experience and strong brains... play battleships even marginally well?

You don't think getting torpedo hits takes skill now?

No. Sure radar on anything but cruisers is incredibly stupid, but many players but time, effort and sometimes money into getting the Missouri. Don't punish the player for WG silliness.

Not interested.

Devils Advocate here. I don't believe that is what they are to a large percentage of the BB population, instead they see them as highly protected long range snipers. If the goal is to survive as long as possible and to perhaps have a good K/D ratio, there are few ships better than German battleships.

Detonation don't directly effect me because I have over 1,000 flags in reserve... I never detonate anymore, but I am able to detonate other ships... usually battleships or cruisers with torpedoes. I find the detonation mechanic interesting because of now it is handled, plus WG explanation for it. "From the game design PoV, they are also needed." Yet, I am able to choose for them not to effect me... so from a game design POV, they are not needed.

So why bother reading them? Does a week go by when there isn't a CV thread, which usually gets heated? I have no interest in battling out over a type of ships I have little experience or interest in... so I just pass on by. You don't play a lot of DDs, and indicate your belief that these thread change nothing, so............... Why so angry?

I can not show you an example, but WG says it is possible. Probability? Posted September 1, 2016 The Q&A by Sub_Octavian dated August 22, 23, 25, 30 and September 1 Q. Can a carrier detonate?A. No. In a carrier, possible areas that may detonate on impact are scattered around the hull, making computing detonations more difficult. In the game, only ammunition bunkers of the main guns can detonate, not torpedoes or the secondaries. Detonations occur as a result of a direct hit by a BB, or a close hit by a HE, bomb or torpedo.

Are you complaining about complaining?

Name the "...game deciding random based mechanics within the game...", that you can play with or not at your own discretion? Fire? Citadels? Flooding? Etc? They can be managed through captain skills, modules, flags, or just your own skills, but they are always there. The possibility of detonation is eliminated with a single flag.