Aotearas

I'd gladly take a bot over some of the human players I see ingame.

Jokes on you guys, you just used up all your beneficial RNG for the next month. Hope you're stocked on Juliet Charlie signal flags

There is no godmode cheat in WoWs. There is however the damage saturation mechanic you might want to look into.

No they don't. MM leaves a lot to be desired overall, including how it handles divisions. But that's not the division's fault (unless they're faildivisioning, in which case I'm assigning partial responsibility if MM spews out something whacky).

Eh, don't take me liking a ship as a charming compliment to its performance. I have a penchant for liking the quirky and the meh boats. Though in all fairness I have to say that the Buffalo is going to have a broadside weight that's to be respected even if the dpm isn't much of an improvement.

Torpedoflopping:

Ran into @Gojuadorai and a mate of his on the red team. We lost resoundedly, mostly because I cracked the jackpot and won a lifetime supply of potato teammates. For example our Midway was autodropping and apparently never heard of strafing from how I saw him use/not-use his fighters. The fact that he actually came topscore should be telling on how bad the team was (also no justice in the world, he got a Witherer with those autodrops, game is even rewarding that kind of potato gameplay). Plus I had your team's radar cruisers constantly hound me, so I couldn't really do much more than sealclub the poor Z-23 with my superiour hydrorange before I got routed out.

Documentary is very US-centric (as are all documentaries on that channel) but still very informative overall!

Last thing I saw about her had her with a very short range radar (8,5km iirc) ... considering WG is working on another free XP ship (and confirmed that it isn't a BB), I'd speculate there's a chance we might see the Salem as a tier IX free XP cruiser.

Alright then, since OP has dialed back a bit and shown he wants to learn, here my 0.02 Euro: Don't try to force those secondaries to work. They are hilariously fun and under some circumstances quite a powerful addition to your arsenal, but they're just that: an addition. They main bread and butter are still your main guns. Yes, they're temperamental and sadly no, it won't get any better (the tier X is only slightly more reliable by way of it simply having more guns, meaning higher propability of hitting something). In a Bismarck (or any other BB for that matter) you typically want to be at ~14km away from the enemy. Close enough that you should consistently hit your targets, but far enough away that you can still react and angle against incoming shells when another previously undetected ship gets spotted shooting at you. If you're confident and facing few ships, you can push harder and exploit your armour and HP to be more aggressive, at which point you can get within secondary range (but I would still hesitate to get any closer than 8-10km unless you have an overwhelming advantage over your opponent). Essentially, you'll only ever get to enjoy blasting away with your secondaries when the game has already been decided and you have little to lose from getting up close and personal with the remnants of the enemy or you have such a massive advantage over the enemy ship you're dueling (focus on duel, i.e.: 1vs1, not 1vs2 or worse). They can be used as effective tool to put pressure on ships though. Say a bow-on tanking BB is sitting in a good location and preventing your team from pushing. In a Bismarck, you can close the distance (assuming you're not also being shot by other enemies) whilst angled yourself at which point his main batteries can't do much damage to you (neither can yours). But your secondaries can chip away at his HP with fires, tipping the stalemate in your favour and forcing him to abandon his position.

But I do stuff like that because I'm under the general assumption that they're also beneficial to the team if I keep them alive. A person that is causing team damage however doesn't get that benefit. I consider people like that a liability. So, like I've said way too many times than ought to be necessary, I require some sort of proof that the player that did cause the team damage is aware of the mistake he made (by way of him taking to teamchat and apologizing for it), to reassure me that he's not going to do it again (to me or other people on our team). If he does, I'll pop my DCP, stop the fires and the reflected damage. If he doesn't, I'm just going to assume that he isn't aware of his mistake (and thus prone to repeating it), at which point I'll let the TK system run its course. It's that simple. Just as simple as watching where you're firing and not hitting a teammate in the first place.

They're actually pretty decent. I was genuinely surprised how much like the Kagero and the Yugumo (already elited the latter with 71k average damage, but not going to buy and play the Shimakaze as long as it still has those godawful 20km torps stock). I feel like the IJN DDs are very much a case of easy to learn, hard to master as they go up the tiers. low tier IJN DDs are just plain silly powerful due to few people knowing how to anticipate torpedo attacks from unspotted ships, but grow increasingly difficult to play when other DDs start seriously ecclipsing them in gun performance and players learned how to handle unspotted DDs better (making torpedo strikes inconsistent). One has to really know which fight you can take against another DD (IJN DD HE has pretty nasty alpha damage and excellent ballistics, but very poor dpm ... good for finishing off damaged DDs or when you're confident that your evading is better than his gunnery to migitate his dpm advantage) and where to put yourself to get good torped runs in (good thing about the hightier IJN DDs is the torps pack a mean punch, so you don't neet to hit many to deal serious damage). In short: IJN DDs are surprisingly effective under the right circumstances. But getting into the right circumstances is the difficult part.

The people preaching the morality here are just tunnelvisioning hard on a single side of the coin. We're supposed to unconditionally use the DCP to ensure the team doesn't suffer unnecessary damage by way of damage reflection on blind faith that it was just a tragic, one-off mistake that will never ever happen again. I'd love to hear what we were suppose to do if we did just that, only for the player to shoot us again and proc some more DoT as our DCP is on cooldown, meaning we still lose HP to teamdamage AND the other guy would still kill himself on the reflected damage (been there, had that happen and that was the exact moment from whence I stopped using my DCP unless they apologize in chat on their own).

So trigger happy he clicked on submit thread twice. At the very least I can already say the clan name is legit!

That's actually a pretty good learning strategy. Assuming the player actually makes the effort to listen and learn, I wouldn't mind giving him tips via teamchat when I have the time, or perhaps some broad advice via PM after the game I feel like I saw a few things I could say something about.

Maybe instead of just declaring a ship to be crap and listing all the things that supposedly don't work as you think they should, you ask how to make the ship work or if something in your current captain/ship build or playstyle could be changed to make it work better? It generally helps with getting answers if you ask questions.

I'm not denying that I have that choice. I have said as such on numerous occasions now. I'm asking why I'm obliged to save a pinkie from the automatically administrated punishment. If he set me on fire because he chose to not care to check where he was firing, then why is my choice limited to unconditionally save him or be denounced as the bad guy? I'm pretty sure I said that I consider using my DCP as a get-out-of-jail card if he can show me that it was a mistake. He can't show me other than apologizing for it, now can he? He can hardly write it into the sea with his ship's wakes. Funny, it just so happens that your reality fits pretty nicely with what WG said if you simply acknowledge that the system works as WG said it does. I wonder if one can get pink in training room by shooting another player set to the same team. If yes, you could easily prove that it's the number of hits that triggers the TK penalty instead of damage by simply shooting AP at an ally where you can't penetrate (ergo not dealing damage) and then just keep shooting until you get pink. Because so far I still have zero reason to believe that what WG said about how the TK detection works isn't how it actually works. And since you said that what I wrote is factually wrong, you should be able to produce the fact.

Still doesn't match what WG said. Iirc the automatic system has a threshold based on relative damage (similar if not the same as the XP are calculated for damage, percentage-based). So if you hit a low HP target, you need to deal less total damage to trigger the penalty than hitting a high HP target for the same amount of damage. Hit a cruiser with BB caliber HE (a couple thousand points worth of HP) plus set a fire that burns and that can already be close to a fifth of said cruisers total HP, penalty gets triggered and you start recieving reflected damage for the rest of the duration that the fire burns. WG also said the system escalates for repeat offenders. Presumably that means that the threshold gets lowered and you need to do less damage before getting penalized.

And that's what you apprently don't understand. The player doing the team damage IS being punished. I'm not doing the punishing. The only option I have is to stop the system from punishing him. So, could you kindly decide what you want? Should people doing team damage be punished or not? Because you can't say they should and then blame people for letting the system do the punishing.

Last I heard WG talk about the TK autodetection, number of hits was irrelevant and only damage dealt counted with the sole exception of a TK being an automatic penalty. If that was changed, I'd love it if you could provide a link so I can check it out. Reflected damage is afaik always amplified. When I happened to be pink after I had collided with a ship who then took massive damage that left it so low that my ramming damage finished it off (now that was a bit of a bummer), I collided with another ship in the next game and took 14 damage per tick (and it started and stayed at 14 damage per tick fromt he first touch down until we finally seperated again), despite only doing a fraction of that to the ship I was colliding with.

Buffalo looks mighty juicy. 4x3 203 (with presumably the same superheavy AP shells as the current Baltimore and Des Moines) at 13 seconds reload sounds pretty neat. B hull AA stats are also nothing to sniff at. With 13,1km surface detectability stock this should come down to ~10km with a full concealment build.

Mkay.

... and apparently nothing I just explained got through to you. Guess I'll have to use shorter sentences: Player #1 does a lot of damage to allies. Player #1 gets pink. Player #1 again deals damage to an ally and procs a DoT. Player #1 starts receiving reflected damage. Player #2 (assuming s/he has DCP off cooldown) now has the choice to use DCP or not. If player #2 doesn't use DCP, DoT keeps ticking and reflected damage can sink player #1 (at the expense of continued DoT on player #2). If player #1 doesn't signal awareness of his mistake (which also means s/he's unlikely to particularily care to avoid doing it again), player #2 is unlikely to use the DCP to save player #1 from the system's administered penalty. If we were to remove the only variable here that isn't player #1 (a.k.a. the pinkie), the result would be reflected damage until s/he either sinks or the DoT wears off (still dealing lots of damage). Ergo, the inclusion of player #2's choice only has potential positive impact on player #1. All player #1 has to do in that moment is owing up to making the mistake and not be a *edited* about it -> player #2 likely to use DCP and prematurely end the administrative punishment. And then comes you, who upon seeing people stating they don't bother using DCP to let the system's punishment run its course unless a proper apology comes their way are just as bad as the player who did all the teamdamage because they aren't unconditionally forgiving the pinkie from the goodness of their hearts. Because really, that's exactly what your sentiment boils down to. Every goddamn player in this game also has the choice to watch where he's *edited* sending his ordnance at. Where was her/his choice when s/he did sufficently large amounts of teamdamage or teamkilled an ally to get pink in the first place? You really mean to argue that the victim of someone else's careless is somehow obliged to reliquish their choice on how and when to use their DCP because the other player made his choice to not *edited* care enough to watch where he's firing? *edited*

I hope you do realize that in order for damage to get reflected on someone, they must've accumulated quite a bit if TK penalities already. You don't get pink just for nicking someone unintentionally. And you don't start getting teamdamage reflected without being pink. So anyone that ends up melting his own hitpoints away due to some "unfortunate incident" pretty damn well deserves it. That is how the game itself judged it. That is the penalty the system applies to deal with such misconduct. And the teamkill detection system is already working with pretty large margin of errors to minimize the possibility of unfairly sanctioning rare mistakes. Unless you already have a history of TKs you don't even get pink within the same match of you TKing someone (the penalty gets applied after the conclusion of the game instead). Me not repairing a DoT some pinkie procced on me to let him sink on his damage reflection isn't me being unfair. The system judged him for his misconduct. On the contrary, me allowing the possibility to repair when he's showing proper signs of realizing he made a mistake and owing up to it is me being more forgiving than the already incredibly forgiving automatic detection system. You don't get to paint me as the petty revenge guy here. Nor is your assertion of "because he doesn't grovel properly" in any fashion necessary or appropriate. I don't know about your experience, but I've had enough instances of people blaming me for "running into his torps" by some idiot who's launching his 6km torps from second line at enemy ships that are way more than 6km out and sailing away, with the only possible targets for him being allied ships in between. Or being sarcastically told "Oh, I'm terribly sorry I tried to help" when I'm in a close-up brawl with another ship and someone else fired into that, only to do more damage to me than the enemy. But whatever, I'm the bad guy for letting pinkies burn themselves out ...