250swb

There's no skill involved in completing the missions, in reality they are a simple way to earn enough Ironium to buy a few ten point Captians (or whatever) outside of 'Fly, Strike, Win' missions.

So a 43% player with 10,000 battles now fits your metric? Or what if they had mostly been playing a class that didn't suit them but for the last 2,000 battles they had a 57% WR playing another class of ship? If you try too hard to segregate players based on any sort of stat it won't be long before you get caught in your own trap.

Skill based MM is a subject that keeps cropping up in WoT. And the answer is always the same, the player who suggests it as a means of supposedly protecting their stats forgets they will now be playing better players so their stats will come down in the long term to hover around 50%. But skill based MM also means those players in the sub-50% tomato category will now also be playing against each other and their stats will level upwards towards 50%. So after a period of time skill based MM would become ever more irrelevant and the only people not hovering around 50% would be the ultimate unicums or newbies.

Isn't that part of the problem, players play it like it's a normal battle and worry about their broadside or taking damage when they would be better ignoring the enemy entirely and destroy the stations? Aggression is the thing that is lacking, especially as the attacking team can re-spawn. Dithering about holding onto HP is what you do in Random Battles, but too many times in Space Battles players are sailing around being precious with HP when a determined suicide will advance the team massively. It's all the contrary of a Random battle, don't play to survive in attacking mode, play to get in among them, kill a few if you can, but get shots at the towers, re-spawn and repeat.

Five containers and mostly got stupid Space Camo

It seems to me that in an average length battle you have one chance within the time to re-spawn a BB (maybe two times for a CC, three for a DD?) so initial aggression appears to be the answer. Degrade the enemy as fast as possible in the early stages, get killed and re-spawn ready for the final stages. If you leave it too late to re-spawn and get back into the battle in a BB by initial play that's too damage averse you've lost the longer term advantage. Hopefully the flanks will have opened up by then so pick off weaklings and use HP to get into positions where you can shoot the towers. Theory and practice are not guaranteed, use at your own discretion.

A good idea that I think addresses the same issue I was endeavouring to cover. But perhaps the 'Mario cart' speed and agility of incoming planes could be dealt with by a spotting system that compromised/nerfed their turning ability when the ship see's their reticle, kind of like a steering gear hit damages a ships turn? I still think an automatic system to do a similar thing would be a good idea, but both systems would be no more than a 'Mod 1' or 'Mod 2' counter to the macro detail of an enemy attack that is currently lost to the defending ship but not to the enemy.

Well if it was going to turn you broadside to a battleship it wouldn't be a data led automatic system would it? It'd be no better than you randomly hitting keys. And just as any system is with the ship, such as choosing when to use torps or when to use guns, the player can choose when to use my proposed system or not. There are times when different systems are more use than others. But out in open water with aircraft to avoid it's hard for players to see the small course changes aircraft make which determine their final attack course, something an observer would be doing on a ship. This is the key to what I suggest, it is in the 'final seconds' of macro detail that is too complicated to analyse while other things are happening. At the moment we have Manual AA, but it's still a broad brush system to counter enemy aircraft. But to press a key once to 'have the AA point that way automatically, wiggle the back end a bit and monitor the situation' or to press the same key twice for 'have the AA follow the planes and do what it takes to avoid, even do a full turn if safe' and it would be no different to observers on a real warships advising course changes. The interaction with the enemy planes comes with any cat and mouse situations where the enemy could try and force a course change if the player is using the automatic system dumbly as only a human can, or by the players ship shooting down more enemy planes automatically. So it's not OP, the interaction comes between both the player and enemy and is directly related to the aircraft in the area. But it's just biased towards the ship a bit more where the exaggerated speed of gameplay in split seconds exceeds the players ability to adjust to the manic ability of planes to jink and turn with dynamics more akin to Super Mario cart, or like that little bee that fly's around as your Spotter plane. Something could be done to obviate the problem in the first place if planes were both slower and took longer to make course corrections. But then you'd have to believe WG are going to nerf CV's all over again and change the gameplay dramatically. As regards not delegating manoeuvering in the game (or anything else), consider how much is delegated in the game, some of which works out some of the time, and some of the time it doesn't. Only one example would be torpedo aiming, you have an automatically generated arc to shoot in to kill the enemy ship, but darn it the ship changes course. There are other examples. Sort of a lesson in when to trust automation and when to use the old noggin.

Nothings changed for those not using mods.

In my first post I made the point about Captains delegating responsibility, and how the delegation would work with a game mechanic. But OK, you've changed your mind and now decide you weave in a very deliberate manner and not at all randomly. I am sorry for the confusion you have, but don't blame me, you put yourself into the position of a making 'smart' remarks.

Seriously, you just randomly hit the keys? I try to go the opposite way to the direction of attack, if I hit the keys randomly 50% of the time I could be helping the enemy hit me. If you'd read my suggestion you'd have realised I wasn't talking about a random pattern. Randomly hitting the WASD keys isn't a plan, it trusts to luck, it is random. My suggestion was for having an automatic plan. If enemy planes were torpedo bombers the plan may be to initially try to evade the fireing of torps, then to align the ship along the axis of the torps while at the same time the AA was automatically pointed towards the planes. You could then make fine adjustments with the WASD keys, but not 'randomly', you want to avoid the torps. In the meantime you could be doing the other things that Captains do instead of delegating, such as picking the next target, keeping guns on target, and without needing to manually manage AA or looking at the exact direction attacking and turning enemy planes were coming from if you didn't need to or want to.

I'd like to be able to shake an angry fist at attacking planes and shout 'curse you, dammit curse you all!' On a practical note, but no less serious note, something like they'd have on Star Trek, 'Mr Sulu, evasion pattern Delta 5, engage.' Now we are never told what 'attack pattern' or 'evasion pattern' is in Star Trek (although some nerds may know), but they are presumably a set response to set events. So in Warships it could be an evasion pattern and AA fire response that reacts to planes attacking from a certain direction, types of planes, etc. These actions would be on a key ready to engage by a simple on/off. You could have set patterns and random patterns, but all are predetermined to try and evade planes by reacting with some tactical programming. A crazy idea I know, but I'm sure somebody other than the Captain on a warship had the responsibility to recommend a defensive course and to monitor AA fire.

It does seem to be a direct a pastiche of 'Frontline' mode in WoT, and to be honest their player base understood how to play it quickly (given it was all about free loot with no comebacks). Using normal tech tree or Premium tanks Frontline has now become a week long event ten times a year at the start of the month. I wonder if Warships are trialing it in Space?

Isn't human nature the test? A player gets killed, flounces off to port giving bad rep to anybody who didn't win the game for him, against what? To give good rep the player needs to be in, or to watch a battle to the end, or be lucky enough to witness a great bit of gameplay in front of him, the odds of that are far, far less likely than flouncing off in a huff blaming everybody.

Do you use mods? If so try running the game in 'safe mode' to see if there is something in conflict.

Seems to me that 'karma' is designed for unconditional mutual admiration among clan members, or a way to be sucky to online streamers who you've shared a battle with. It has no meaning for the majority of players who are outside that club. And given the few players who stick around to the end of the battle anyway to actually see who played it well and congratulate them with a 'played well' the metric is even more limited. At the very least to make Karma representative up-voting should be banned to fellow clan members and only available as a vote within two minutes of the end of a battle, but then nobody would get any votes and it would prove itself pointless.

But just imagine starting the same thread next Tuesday, ouch!

The other good thing is if you can earn some Ironium you can get the temporary 19pt captains as permanent 10pt captains by buying them from the Armoury. If you can get a couple of 'free' 10pt captains while you play through the low tiers it is a big advantage

If you run Pingplotter in the background it should tell you if it is WG at fault or your own internet connection. Point Pingplotter to trace the connection to login1.worldofwarships.eu If you want to test your internet connection to cross reference point Pingplotter to the generally stable web sites such as the BBC or Google. This is the WG WoT support page for Pingplotter but applies to WoWs as well https://eu.wargaming.net/support/en/products/wot/article/10252/

You go out and have eight pints, a curry, a taxi home, and a bollocking when you get home, and £103 seems no worse than a night out but without all the aggro.

No, I've just been in the port, checked things are ok, the interface is much cleaner, Capt reset active, etc.

online now

three, two, one..... ....and it's still offline.

It's clear to see at weekends that 'playing for fun' in its most carefree sense is very evident in the battles, and it's probably no coincidence that threads like this tend to kick off at weekends. Personally I can't understand why anyone would play any game if it wasn't to try and win it by making your best effort. Fun should flow from that alone, the satisfaction of your best effort, not under the disguise of 'only playing for fun' which to me translates as 'I'm pretending not to care'. You can be less skillful than another player and still try your hardest, still hurt if you played well and lose, still try to be better even if you've hit a wall. But to turn down the light on competitive spirit and say you only play for fun, well you may just as well play against bots who don't care if they or you win or lose.

And the the reason I moved to WoWs is that WoT players can always find something insignificant to bleat about, which you prove admirably.