Zathras_Grimm

I understand your take and many others seem to dance around the fact that it is the Shim they have a problem with. I think the Shim is probably the DD that best utilises the current state of the game to it's advantage at the moment (but is it the root cause of the issue). The Tirpz appears to be a much loved ship and I have seen many encouraged to buy it. If lots do, is that the same bell thats ringing as for the Shim, or Yamato, or any of the other ships that are played often? There are a few that are picked regularly over others.

and that is where your arguement falls flat. I have not said the cap is the wrong solution (in fact I said who knows). What I also said is I believe the issue people have talked about at top tiers may not be solved by just capping DDs. Only one person of the 2 of us has chosen what he believes to be right and will not consider anything else. That is you! If people know me then they also know you, a foul mouthed person who believes he can tell people what they can or cannot do or twists words. And lets not forget some of your quotes: Its not about damage - torpedoes cause too much damage; if there are more DDs it is harder for DDs to operate - cap DDs; there is no teamplay - the enemy team was able to ambush ships (whilst your side did nothing?). Sounds like teamplay to me. As stated, I do not have the issue with your choice of solution. It is you that has the issue that I don't agree it is the only solution. You know my position and I know yours.

The example given for 1 CL killing 3 DDs was this happened several times. Why when someone else fails are they stupid and it is just fantastic play by yourselves. Yet when you are made to play a 'boring' game (read unable to do the usual things BBs do), it is because the game is bad and things must be changed? To Ghostbuster: Yes, there are several threads about DDs, that is why there are also several questions posed when you give a one stop solution. And yes your continued cry for a cap is as boring as my questions offering other solutions. Strange thing is my suggestions are only offered when other players indicate a cap is not the answer. XTHDs love of DDs is well know from his insults about the players, to his focus on the Shima; on this site as well as another. But this why questions are asked. Is this a cry about 'World of DDs' (against all DDs); against torps (that make people run into a corner); or against the Shima in particular? Ok although a cap is called for we will say it is only for top tiers (8+)? When CVs re-emerge the torps are highlighted, the DDs are highlighted, the DDs are killed, but that's ok. You'll be able to leave your corners and play individually just like you enjoy. Who knows you might even call it teamplay. But just like the CVs you say dissapeared, so may the DDs. I guess the poor CVs will get targetted next for not screening; like on another thread already. Edit: 159Hunter - so a cap to DDs will hopefully help with you not bumping into IJN DDs; although you will still have the issue with your guns, so is a straight cap the only solution? Anyway, some want a direct cap and that is their choice, just as others believe a cap will not solve everything.

Well we have already had an example where 2 DDs in a game did not bring back dynamic play (ZombieCheese example). So again there is a counter to your side. You say its annoying to be asked questions? Well it is also annoying to find yet another thread with someone complaining about DDs. Yet when asked the questions that are so 'annoying' we find examples where a cap isn't the solution for everyone! Who knows what the answer is, but it is obvious you feel it is a cap. Every example where you have a low number of DDs everything is fantastic and everyone loves it. Every high number count is an absolute disaster with every terrible scenario being mentioned. Yet others have quoted the opposite , or asked questions. All that annoys you and you start using the foul language or telling people what they should, can or can not do. All I would ask of you is not to be so rude when someone has a different opinion. For instance you state CVs are fine yet many others have stated the opposite. That's what a forum is about, discussion.

If you are on a forum discussing changes to a game then expect to be questioned. I have stayed away as the chat exclusively centred around top tiers but a cap would affect all levels. It is also as if you will not accept any other solution but the cap; 2 of which I have suggested twice now. I would love to know why your way is better than my suggestion, or why my suggestion wouldn't work. The game and all its levels are open to everyone. As stated in my last post you do seem to contradict yourself a bit and it does always seem as if the lack of teamplay and all the bad things at high tier always happens to your team. But when dealing with frustration I can understand the need to press your case. Both mtm and Zombie have stated, even when DDs are at lower numbers or they try to push forward, most of the team still hang back and refuse to play as a team. Maybe cost of repairs is yet another contributing factor? I do not rule out a cap, but will that bring back teamplay? Will it bring back CVs? It doesn't sound like it. Players say they want to fight, players say they want to win. Reduce repair costs, introduce an MM that actually works with distribution and type of DDs, address the issue with CVs in order to bring them back. Surely this will start to address the mindset and gameplay at higher tiers?

I'm only talking about the cap, I haven't mentioned a buff or a nerf for anyone (unless 1 CA at the lower level really can kill a Div of 3 IJN DDs several times)! My question was if you don't want the Cap on DDs for anyone, then why do you want a cap? DDs are not OP, torps don't do massive damage, it is harder for DDs if more DDs are in a game - all elements of statements you have made. Then you turn around and say it's horrible because the enemy team corrals your team into a corner and pounces on poor CAs left on their own - that sounds like good teamwork. You talk about Everybody running from torpedoes - why when they cause no damage and damage doesn't matter? And low tier does not sound fine! - it seems it is only fine because you can kill 3-4 DDs in 1 CA and now you want that in higher tiers? It is difficult to see what your thoughts are because you contradict yourself a lot. Their is no team play - yet the enemy seems to do very well forcing you into a corner and killing your team by employing team tactics. You say the more DDs there are the worse it is for DDs, then ask for a cap! Your team always seems to be the team that has the DDs that don't do anything, whilst the other teams DDs run circles around you. People have complained about the issues at top tier and I'm sure they're not making it up, but the reasons you seem to want to employ a cap for seems to be nothing to do with addressing the bigger problem, but just something to make your life easier? What about the matching of DD numbers and ensuring Torp and Gunboats are evenly distributed? What about looking at CVs so they make a reappearance; after all it seems crazy that a game with 4 classes of ship doesn't have one of them at high tiers? I'm not saying a cap isn't the answer either! I'm just saying that we shouldn't look at just the result of a problem, but the problem itself. People like yourself are the one's that can help WG know what that is (rather than just say 'Cap DDs'). Time for me to go to bed.

Sorry, who are you asking this for then, not CAs so BBs I am guessing? 3 DDs fighting in a Div supporting each other in team play and 1 CA killed them all. Good going, you are an excellent player, they were poor or a combination of both. With a result like that I would definitely question a cap on DDs; you managed to kill 3 IJN stealth DDs in 1 CA (a Div to boot!). If 3 is the limit you want then you have convinced me a cap is a terrible idea; doesn't sound fair to me if 1 ship can kill 3, on several occasions, and at least on one occasion they were stealth DDs working together in a Div already having successfully taken down a BB together! Edit: So not to leave it on a negative, if not a cap then the matching of numbers on DDs and the type of DDs at higher tiers may work. Maybe some kind of buff to the higher tier CVs if they are non-existent (are they that bad to play?); CVs are the natural enemy of DDs as the aircraft highlight them. The CAs that have hidden with the BBs could then hunt with torps being highlighted and BB support; team work at high tiers as well - a winner!

Please do not say I think everything at top tiers is the same as lower tiers; it is a lie. I do not and have never said so. However, if you think you should be able to handle 3-4 DDs on your own at top tier like you apparently do low tier, then I do believe you are asking for an unfair advantage. In fact maybe low end tier DDs need a buff if one CA can handle 3 (how do you corral them all into the same area?). Anyway, in your example you have painted the picture of the lone CA being surrounded by DDs. May I ask what your own DDs and CAs are doing? I know it is quoted top tiers have no team play but surely they aren't all huddled into the corner due to the torpedoes. Also how come the enemy team always manages the team play in your scenario; they either surround one poor ship or synchronise torp walls to devastate your team. I agree there would be less aggro for me if DDs were limited, but would that be fair if 1 CA can take on 3 at the moment at lower tiers. The result may be a quick fix at top tier but what about the other tiers and what about the other problems? I would think something will change soon, only because top tiers must be pretty sparse if the play is that bad. Can't be good for WG as a company.

Of course there are other ships, but by your own admission many of the rest of the 11-12 ships are BBs (as there are few CAs and little or no CVs). If DDs are spotting DDs (and the MM has balanced fairly) can't they assist their own DDs in the fight, along with whatever CAs there are? Sorry that they can't move in and attack the bigger targets which is something they are used to doing and have to take a supporting role until the main scrap is over, but that is the way it goes*. DDs love to hit CVs but can't the majority of the time because they have to get past all the other ships; it's the same for BBs in the above scenario, they too have to be patient. Also if there are 13 DDs in the game then we are talking the majority of the ships in the game having a direct role and half supporting; isn't this around the norm (except this time the smaller ships are doing the direct attacks, the larger ones supporting). I think you indicate the CAs can't do anything because of the number of DDs (rather than BBs), I won't argue this as if the DDs outnumber the CAs 2-1 then I would expect the CAs to have a hard time of it, but if the DDs end up being capped (when we all agree they are not OP) and get spotted by a superior number of CAs, then isn't that as bad? Again, the gameplay at top tier is obviously not to the liking of those that play it so I can only assume that the BBs should be the top dog and all the rest support; it plays a little more evenly for all ships in the lower tiers. *However, if you grind to those top tiers expecting one thing and find you get something completely different I can understand the frustration.

It's a relief you have understood that most players realise damage = XP and never had an issue with your repetative insistance in the first place. It is indeed nice to agree.

But isn't it the fear of damage that is making everyone run or stay at a distance? Of course damage isn't the be all and end all, but when many at top tier state they are rarely hit by the torp walls you have to ask the question why aren't they engaging as a team then? Also 6 DDs vs 6 DDs, why not? If the bigger ships are hanging back anyway, let the DDs fight it out. Once one side gets the upper hand the bigger ships can take a bigger role. Of course staying back doesn't stop them engaging highlighted DDs earlier anyway. If it is an uneven match up then that is down to the MMs distribution of DDs. Not the DDs themselves. You also get this scenario at lower tiers which presents problems if in a cap game.

The problem is that R,S,P paradigm is destroyed at High Tiers, which prevent teamplayers to even try to collaborate... And the reasson is obvious, eliminate counters and what they did counter will flourish (Symetrically, eliminate what you counter and your contribution to teamplay sinks into oblivion)... The problem with all this nerfs is that on EACH phase, players that want to play ONLY a given class will simply stop playing... And if you don't do anything the players complaining will ALSO stop playing (Versatile players that enjoy multiple classes are less prone to this... But not completely immune)... ...So WG is in deep crapdoesn't matter what they do, it's a matter of who to piss off... It's population control what we are talking about here, delicate matter and far more complex than what some ppl seems to think... WG mercilessly nerfed CV gameplay and seems incapable of "bringing back" players able to enjoy the new way to play in them... It's like trying to keep a table balanced with one of the legs shorter than the rest. I don't disagree with what you say and that is why, although you highlighted the 'choice of players' comment I made, I also indicated later in the same post that it could also be a mode of play that is 'forced' upon players (because of current game mechanics). However, when anyone seems to mention a team play approach it is automatically jumped upon and ridiculed with a cry that "there is no team play" then an automatic call to 'cap' DDs. This is unfortunate as it is an action against one class when there are many factors that contribute to the current state of affairs at all levels. As a cap to DDs also affects all levels it will automatically have DD players say 'Whoa, slow down! Why have a go at the DD if the DD isn't the actual cause!". Personally I would prefer lower numbers of DDs, but that is a totally selfish point of view as I am an IJN DD player; less numbers of any other nations enemy DDs are better for me! I did like the 'One leg shorter than the rest' comment; made me laugh (an annoying/frustrating circumstance, but fits the current state of play to a tee lol). Thanks for your thoughts.

Absolutely, don't try to change what the 'result' of the inbalance is (high number of DDs), but rather the cause(s) of the high numbers. As Zombie said, people still shoot from a distance when 2 DDs are present (so why wouldn't more people choose DDs; can't hit what you can't see?). Also, time and again it is quoted that in a 'team game', at high tiers, team play is non-existant. Why penalise a class by capping it because of the choice by players at high tiers not to play as a team? Many have stated both the above points (no team play and long range firing) takes place at high tiers, so why make the poor or forced play at that level change the game for all?

Ok, even after saying that I agree with what you are saying and that many others already understand that more damage = more XP, you continue to argue the same point? So in the hope of getting through to you I will use your prefered method: WHY ARE YOU CONTINUING TO STRESS A POINT THAT NO ONE HAS DISAGREED WITH? I AGREE WITH YOU REGARDING HITS = POINTS! YOU THEN DISCUSS THE EXACT FACT MOST OF US ARE INDICATING FRUSTRATION AT: SOMEONE NOT ASSISTING LEADING TO A NEGATIVE AFFECT TO THE TEAM OVERALL. NOW GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD: 1. I KNOW MORE DAMAGE = MORE XP. 2. WHO HAS ARGUED AGAINST THIS IN THIS WHOLE THREAD? 3. I DON'T CARE ABOUT XP/KILLS BEING ALLOCATED TO ME. 4. I DON'T CARE IF HIS PISS POOR TEAM PLAY LEADS TO HIS DEMISE. 5. I CARE ABOUT HIS PISS POOR PLAY CAUSING TEAM MATES TAKING DAMAGE AND THE NEGATIVE AFFECT IT MAY HAVE ON OUR TEAM WINNING! Now, back to normal txt. Great you have given your opinion, many times (even though no one has actually disagreed with you!). But I can only assume that you believe others must stop at the XP statement you made and consider nothing else? Why else would you carry on with an arguement no one, I REPEAT - NO ONE has disagreed with. I play one frikin ship and have XP coming out my [edited]! I actually only care about playing well, enjoying myself and the team winning. So having an A hole who is not contributing to the team when they could is something I feel is justified about complaining about. AND YES I KNOW I WILL GET MORE XP FOR HITTING HIM MORE! But understand I don't care; especially if my game ends there! I have no doubt you will again say I do not understand hitting more = more XP and I can't fight that logic when I have informed you in 3 posts that I agree, so I will happily leave you to once again stress a point no one has actually denied.

Why do you say I don't understand, I do. What's more I do not disagree with you. Show me a post where I have? Doing damage helps with xp, getting a kill with one shot gives you a little bar and 15% of the ship value (or around that I think); nothing really. See, no need to rage. What I don't understand is your inability to understand that it is not the xp or anything like that I am talking about. I have been stating that when someone uses that tactic (not firing), then team mates take unecessary damage. Maybe even enough to finish their game right there. If you could get over your own anger issues maybe you would see that most of the people you are trying to preach to are already converted; we're talking about something else: Players allowing their team mates to take more damage than needed.

I try not to be as flippant back but have you considered your arguement about causing damage falls flat on it's face if you aren't alive to fight on? Hurrah, I caused more damage; crap I'm dead because someone failed to assist! Can't cause your all important damage if you're dead can you! Guess you can sit back and enjoy the battle; maybe follow the guy who couldn't be arsed to help. The fact is I don't care about him either, but I do care about my ability to continue the fight. Hope I don't have to explain that fact for another 10 pages

My mistake I was actually looking at the post directly above mine when quoting 'his' post, I can see mine is a misleading post. I do hope your teddy didn't get hurt on his journey out of your cot.

@ Cro Pwr: You do know that most of those talking about 'KS' are in fact complaining about scenarios where people are not attacking and 'dealing damage' (as you so rightly put it), but rather sitting back and letting team mates take fire? @ True Winterfeld: I think everyone would agree on your 'securing the kill' comment. I would also encourage those securing that kill to get off their spectator seats and join in earlier instead of watching the battle with one hand hovering over the fire button and the other holding their PIMMS lol. I would agree that if people are complaining because they don't get to sink a ship, then go play a single player game where you can get all the kills you want! However, if they are complaining that people are happily letting their team mates take damage and not joining the fight in order to secure their own agendas (such as mission objectives), then I would support the complaint (not that it will change anything lol)

Not at all, I play IJN DD and would do the same. In one scenario a friendly BB was taking fire and losing the fight, I get back drop smoke and fire torps. I don't fire guns as I don't want to be seen; just conceal my team mate and spot for him. When I believed I could chance adding my immense Minekaze firepower to the fight without (hopefully) the chance of being killed I do. Can't remember who got the kill but we both survived. In the example above and the one you gave both players are fighting as best they can for the team; as stated before, kill the enemy quickly - win the game. However, both of those scenarios do not include a ship that is visible, can join the battle, but chooses not to until he can secure the kill. He is therefore not working for the team but rather for himself. I would prefer to not use the 'Kill Steal' phrase as I do not believe that explains what is going on, but the difference in the scenarios seems pretty simple: Ships fighting together for team win vs ships playing for their own gain.

I do not believe he would begrudge you using your firepower elsewhere; where it will help the team more. He is stating that his problem has been where the friendly has withheld his fire until the last minute: Your scenario: Both friendly ships firing at enemy, BB leaves at end to better use firepower elsewhere. Great (IMO)! His scenario: Whilst fighting the enemy your friendly BB does nothing....then fires at the end. Not so great (IMO)! At least that is what I believe he is saying. 2 completely different scenarios that I think are being confused because people see the 'Kill Steal' title and want to take a side straight away rather than read the posts. It's the fingers in ears and 'La-la-la' syndrome.

In random games many do not know who they are playing with and will pick their course of action before the clock starts; as things unfold team play comes more into play. Remember no one is in charge unless the 'Team' wants them to be; why is one persons lead any better than another's? Unfortunately if someone has taken a gamble in their first choice this might well leave them in a bad situation; their choice and no one else's fault. I will often shoot off to cap and scout in my DD, sometimes I end up on my own. If I can cap great, if not then I harass those enemy ships in that area, keeping them highlighted, stopping them pushing forward and maybe kill some. If the DD numbers are less then my role becomes more of a scouting one when part of the team shoots forward (just in case the enemy DD is around) That the person you were playing with felt the need to blame the team, that is his poor play. Apparently their is no team play in higher teams, at all.

Kill the enemy as fast as possible; win the game. I find the 'Kill Steal' term is used too often to discribe the exact opposite - some idiot who would let a team mate take fire because they will not fire until they think they will get the last shot. Kill Steal? More like Kill Team! (Metophorically speaking of course ).

A lot of anti-DD threads seem to have an underlying theme centred around the belief that DDs are only in the game to screen and capture! A real rage mob descends, pitchforks and torches, should one dare to sink ships! Never suggest working as a team to combat a difficult situation either. To suggest players try to work as a team, in what is a team game, is a hanging offence. Nope, better to let those who have been wronged change the game to how they want it.

Don't think he was stating that Col Pete. I think he means that if the attack is a concentrated one that maybe uses 2 Sqns, you will get hit no matter what wiggling you do. Guess it comes down to accepting that a good CV player who uses his time and resources should expect results. I am sure it takes time to send the planes out and avoid enemy planes and AA. The reload turnaround cannot be forgotten either. If good and the effort and time is spent on an attack why shouldn't CVs rightfully expect a kill? Sometimes we seem to readily accept kills from BBs and CAs but find it difficult to accept both CVs and DDs should be able to do the same.

A fantastic endeavour that I am sure many new players to the game, or those that wish to try new ship classes, or better their general gameplay, will greatly benefit from! An excellent example that will contribute to the overal enjoyment of the game and assist in generating a positive gaming community; good luck to you!