Zathras_Grimm

Only that a 6th sense icon wouldn't let you know you were leaving the smoke, just that you're no longer in it.

Because the conversation always veers away from the topic when someone is too interested in peoples stats rather than supporting their own view. Straight away you attacked his ship as opposed to the statement he made (well apart from the you don't know S contribution!). Also there are just as many people who say there isn't a problem with DDs than say there are (I even think the vote had 'no restrictions on numbers' in the lead). Just stick to your point of view; if valid it should be enough, no need for insults (everyone).

Ok, this is getting heated. Having heard many POVs regarding high tier play it seems that it is not so much of the issue with DDs and their abilities but rather the MM system. I state that point as I believe DDs get a lot of hate out there because of what is a problem with the MM dynamic (mismatched high numbers of different nation DDs). I find it hard to agree there would be a problem if the numbers (however high) and nations are generally matched, but if not I am sure that it will have an effect on the game. Personally I would like the style of gameplay at Tier V mirrored in the higher tiers.

Actually just as the DD can take a pop at any ship, any ship can have a pop at a DD. Yes that DD has to remain undetected but I have already stated all the ways a DD can be spotted; these different ways are what sometimes lead DD captains to U-turn to keep out of sight leading to achieve little in a match. Not saying you haven't, but please have a fair few games in a DD and you will see that there are quite a few things that can detect you, and when they do, get ready for the 'S' storm of incoming fire. Many times I have been left with sub 200 HP after being spotted at the beginning of the game. No repair to help us (quite right too, we have stealth)

Hell yes, a bit of customization! But again I plead with WG to change the Christmas Minekaze and Halloween Fujin. Pleeeeeease, even rusty grey is preferable. Edit: Although they will probably charge me to change to grey lol.

A lot of information that you would have got the answer to had you bothered to read all my posts. Never mind, but basically you are creating scenarios that may support your stance on this subject but has nothing to do with my actions. I have no intention of beating up a blind armless person or telling someone they had a good game if they didn't. You really go for the worst case scenarios and personal jibes to support your arguement don't you!

I think we have both agreed we would not congratulate a team if they lost badly. I think the other point is how some people think the use of GG is bad whatever the circumstance. I am sorry for them; not meant in a bad way or to indicate they are wrong, just that it will not stop me saying GG for the reasons I have already posted. I'm just sorry some people will see my GG comment as an insult.

Hey, you calling me old, but in a way I'm not supposed to realise?! @Allufewig: why not just tell them they suck then? Personally, I would just leave saying anything at all if they were that bad as even trying to be constructive and helpful could be seen as an insult. But no, I would only congratulate my team for a quick win or if the enemy played well and delivered a well skilled a55 whooping to my team, I would congratulate them on it (and prob get bad karma from my own team lol).

Apologies, but with the way you started the post and your description of those not using the phrase correctly being childish led me to believe you were certain in your understanding. I totally agree that GG can be used for a number of reasons. I just gave the reasons I use it; none to cause offence to anyone else. One of those examples we all like to use (Mike Tyson isn't in this one sorry!): I hold the door open for a lady; I believe I am being polite. She can think the same, not give a hoot or think I am a male chauvinist for daring to hold the door open for her. Not much I can do about that, that is the way she percieves my actions. The fact I'd hold the door open for a bloke as well....It makes my brain hurt to try and work out my own thoughts half the time, let alone interpret what somone else 'thinks' I mean. Again, apologies for my incorrect interpretation on my part

I agree, I will only congratulate my own team in team message, if we are the winners. If we have been 'stomped', then depending on how the enemy team stomped us I will either GG them for playing well or just exit the game with the thought of how badly we played. Nowadays with internet anonymity I really don't look for the hidden meaning in things. If we suck as a team, then I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of the enemy team just told us straight!

(You people! nice way to start a post). Your points are very well put together, but etiquette is a code of good behaviour generally expected in society. With everything that happens on the internet, who are you to decide what is the accepted good behaviour or not? I would suggest that no one can say 'they know' what is the rule of the internet and what is not; the fact that half the people here express a positive reason for saying GG and the other half state a negative approach to GG probably says more about their character than etiquette. It certainly blows away your assumption that it is wrong. In fact the little 'grown up' comment at the end says it all (if you don't think the way I do then you are children); now who is the child? So why was the way I was using GG not good etiquette anyway? I'm sorry to say, my reason for saying GG is not bad, it's your perception for why I am saying it that is; whose fault is that?

Your post did make me laugh; poor disabled man fighting Mike Tyson! Love the fact you had to introduce that level of scenario to support your POV. Well whatever makes you feel good my friend; you wish to think the worst go ahead

If someone kills me the GG in open chat is to them for playing well (or I say 'nicely played'). If my team loses then the GG is in open chat for the oppositions good team play. If my team had a good game then I will say GG in the team chat. Or the game can just be a close one where both teams played well. I 'GG' out of politeness and an enjoyment of a good game, if someone wants to read an ulterior motive into it, that's up to them; can't stop those haters! If someone wants to 'bad karma' me for it, go ahead, I'll cry about it at a later time I'm sure.

What do you class as short range/long range torpedoes? Not saying you are, but if this is a complaint about the Shim then I understand many people have a problem with them as they are blamed for firing every torpedo in any game they are in at a rate of a Tommy Gun if believed. Also their uncanny ability to synchronise their runs to perfection creating a wall of torpedoes happens every game too! I now believe they are as good as the Red Arrows with their formation torpedo runs. However, if you are saying you would prefer to have high tier games similar to lower tiers (V and below), I'm all for it. The slow reloads don't interest me at all and I would be happy for a shorter range, smaller number spread and lesser payload. I'd consider worth my while to grind the tiers. Of course I'm only talking about the IJN line, as I like my stealth, but interested in what the other nation DD players think.

I chose the IJN DDs because of their stealth but against a good team I can do absolutely nothing, against a bad team I can notch up several kills. The stealth and torpedoes along with it's speed to get away are the main attributes for the IJN DDs (especially the Minekaze that I play). The only problem is you can have an extremely quick game if you come up against any other nations DDs (even at a tier lower) as their guns are twice as powerful as yours. If they are being supported you have to contend with support fire, if CA or BB launches spotter planes you have to contend with them and then you have the CV planes. Everlasting and circling like the buzzards they are lol. With little HP and the ability to be 1 shot detonated it can be difficult. Not saying any other ship class or nation has it easy of course all ships have their positive and negative aspects, but many state they can't be seen so it must be easy, the skill is remaining unseen! (Ahhh for a ninja smiley at this point).

lol, fair enough, thought you were referring to the . Although please don't fall into the trap of classing a class of ship players (such as DD) as below standard with no skill. It's like saying BB's just sit back, expecting to be protected by all their team mates whilst they do nothing but snipe and sip their PIMMS! Then complain when torpedoed because of this when a DD gets through. No ship is easy; although you can enjoy playing ships better than others and get a 'feel' for them. Edit: just read post 61. Of course DDs can zig-zag, try to stay away from planes, try to use their boost to get away from gunboat DDs try to stay out of site from enemy CAs who are zig-zaging and turning towards them and also pop smoke. Of course BBs and CA's can support their team mates, push forward together as a team use their planes, use the map, use their repair, use a zig-zag pattern and (with CAs) cut through smoke with the sonar. All players have positive and negatives when playing classes.

I said that players who already had the ARP were likely the 'more experienced' players (granted that was an assumption). More experienced indicating know-how or skill; this was my explanation for the difference in stats (i.e. the better scores). Again later on in the thread I stated that those who fought for the ARP ship would not fall into the class of the grinders who may just be trying to pass the Kongo for higher tier ships, so that too may show why there is a difference. Not a definite I know, but just strange that your reply was: 'No it doesn't' I don't refute what you then went on to talk about your conversation went to another topic. Also I always said 'might indicate'; so not a certainty. But once again unless I am reading wrong, your reply was'no it doesn't' Anyway, the fact in this case is even in your last post that I have included you state 'better players have them', which is what I was making the assumption of in 398 and you agreed with in in quote 455.

Well if you look at my posts you will find whereas others may have said that I didn't. In fact several pages back I indicated that the ships probably showed that better players were playing the ARP ship. I was told 'No it doesn't'. Post 394.

Understood and agreed, but then I would also expect the stats to show that the performance is poor too (regarding damage etc); this is because if the ship is unwieldy I would also expect players not to perform to well in them. I also understand that a bad set of damage stats would not necessarily indicate a poor player (as, like you say, a player may be good but have difficulty with the 'querks' presented by the ship itself). That is why I stated earlier on in the thread that I believed a combination of the ship specs (or as I called them at the time stats ), and the damage stats could be used to 'indicate' that there could be an issue. Only indicate a possible problem though. Again that is why in an earlier post I said that there seem to be 2 groups regarding the torpedo issue, those that think they are OP and those that don't (what the thread is about). I stated that the damage stats for torpedoes does not show there is a problem with them being OP (I think I said 'god like killing machines' or the like), but that doesn't mean they aren't having a change affect to the game and asked whether that should be more of a consideration? Anyway, appreciate your reply.

I have already indicated that the more seasoned players may have achieved the ARP ship earlier than others which could indicate why the stats are better (because more experienced players were using them as oppose to the general populous that grind the levels at the normal rate to get the Kongo). I would assume the ARP Kongo would have also been specced up and loved by those who won them, whereas as some may grind through the normal Kongo to get to a higher tier. This was completely refuted by XTHD in post 394.

Ghostbuster, you really should look at XTHDs previous post where he indicated I made a mistake but by doing so actually proved he understood what I meant (the examples I gave may have also helped). There is even a smiley face to indicate that I am picking him up on what he picked me up for. So please don't lecture me when I merely point out his lack of use of the word he berated me for not using and getting wrong. Poor use of the troll label, but not unexpected of you when trying to prove a point. 1. And XTHD stated that I was wrong for not using the word 'specification'. Hence my opening line; read the posts before criticizing them. 2. Correct it does give an indication of how the game is affected. So as the stats indicate that torpedoes are no worse at higher tiers than any other tier why complain about torps? That was the point I have always been making. XTHD bought up the ship element to which I stated 'how can you use stats to support your argument in one case' (ARP and Kongo) but refute stats when they don't support your torpedo stance? As for the whole ship specs or capabilities or abilities or whatever we wish to call them (as it was obvious that we ALL knew what was being talked about), take a look at my 2 previous posts I have quoted you will see that I agree with the use of stats. So if you agree that stats can indicate and be relied upon to show the difference between an ARP ship and a Kongo, then you must agree on the use of stats to show that torpedoes are not the problem you say they are. So why even start complaining about them when no stat supports your view yet you stand by the use of stats?

Oh yes, the beautiful one shot 'detonation' scenario. @ IBlitz: I do not think ZombieCheese was being rude but rather just pointing out that DDs do not have citadels (difficult to say without it sounding like a plain rebuff of your point unless trying to make light of it). Although maybe Zombie was being rude, 'bad Zombie' Although the DDs are fast and manoeuvrable, the rate of fire and number of ships that fire at you when you are spotted, along with the low HP can really hurt. Many time's it has been enough to kill or leave me with a sub 100 HP count. CAs definitely do not need an increase in firing rate (IMHO). Many have then wanted some consumable or buff that allows CAs to find DDs. Again this completely changes the dynamic and would introduce the 'why can the BB one shot me?'; scenario that the CAs use now. Reduce the damage of BBs a bit but also reduce % chance of detonations, floods, fires and citadels. Ships would last longer so the fight would be more intense longer into the game and you would still have a winner because of the points system. As CVs are reintroducing themselves anyway the only other thing I can think of is (hate myself for saying this) giving low level DDs who can't remain undetected in order to launch there torps more HP. As their artillery is usually double that of IJN DDs with better fire rates I won't even go there!

When you talk about ship capability are you talking about ship specs? It would be helpful if you use the terms you have used previously 'I provided an example where they clearly don't'. So this will be one of those times where the stats ARE NOT 'unreliable' then; as you are using them to prove your point. But then when the stats show torps are no more of an issue at high tiers, which goes against your point of view, then they become UNRELIABLE and don't paint the full picture. Yes I understand your approach now: Against your point of view = stats are unreliable (Torpedo kills). For your point of view = stats are ok to use (ARP vs Normal Kongo). That makes complete logic. And could you possibly answer the last 2 questions then: If 'stats cannot be relied upon, why did you use them in your ARP vs Kong example and where do you get your all knowing knowledge from to claim the stats are ok to use in some scenarios (ARP vs Kongo) but not in others (Torpedoes)? I have tried to ask straight forward questions with the examples you have provided so that you can help me with the logic you are employing to solve this 'I am using a set of stats to prove a set of stats is unreliable' conundrum (you see, my school approached logic as a tool of valid reasoning i.e. if stats are unreliable to use, you don't then go ahead and use them to try to prove the point that they're unreliable! (just my school I guess)). Edit: If Ghostbuster or RichardNixon could help explain this one I'm ok with that too (no disrespect to either in putting this to them; I know you have enlisted their help in the past).

You are correct I used the wrong word for the ship specs. But no, the stats I was referring to through most of the thread were indeed the damage stats that show no peak in torpedo damage at high tiers than in lower tiers. The 2 cases I mentioned the ship specifications I also gave examples to go along with them; hence your ability to pick out my mistake. I have no problem in acknowledging my error in this matter; what a shame you had to be your usual charismatic self in pointing it out. Even when right you still manage to make yourself look silly with your rage. Edit: Now we have sorted that out and it is obvious that you understood what was meant, do you actually have anything to add in regards to my statement or why you used stats to prove stats are wrong (and if the stats are indeed wrong how you know this?) You seemed to have got side tracked from answering the earlier question. Unless this was a mistake on your part? Only joking.

So if he'd used his spotter then his chiice to stay and fight was a risky one as the only way he was going to find you was if he guessed right. I would have joined my friend who left. I only stay on my own if I am in my DD and then that is still a risk that if it turns bad I only have myself to blame. You annoying , never! Got to travel back to work now. Have a good evening if playing!