AnotherDuck

Black is the most stupid of stupid ships in WoWs. Balancing by rarity is one of the worst kinds of "balances", because it means absolutely nothing if you meet it. And if you have it, you're always overpowered; no rarity there.

Haven't really played any of them other than Shiratsuyu and Mahan, and the latter was a long time ago. So I have experience with one of them. Which is a good ship if you're good at being sneaky and good at aiming and timing torpedoes. The guns are rather punchy for a DD, but slow firing. Makes for good kiting, though, since the arcs are good.

Bismarck is one of those ships where the build can vary quite much depending on what you want. The most efficient build is a survival build with some additions to Secondaries and AA. The most fun build is whatever you like to play, but most people like the full secondary build. How you do it depends entirely on your playstyle, but AR, BFT, AFT, and Manual Secondaries are pretty much mandatory.

I have a few CQC kills in Leander. The secondaries there are surprisingly potent.

Shoukaku was my third level 99 (after two Yuus). Zuikaku was my last buildable (just after Zuihou), and currently at 98. Granted, I still don't have Taihou (for various reasons). Saratoga I got before she was buildable, and technically Houshou is after Zuikaku in the list, but she's one of those I've gotten for the second time around. CVs and CVLs are among those you kind of have too many of if you keep them all, I think. Not quite Yuu. And a pudding, because who doesn't like pudding? The other Yuu. And someone pretending to be her. Shoukaku.

At least they're trying to win, which is more than I can say for a lot of teams. I've seen the exact same positioning when the exit area was to the west.

Shoukaku was my final drop when killing Abyssal Zuikaku. Almost entirely appropriate. Just a little bit different would've been so much more amusing... Of course, I had both of them in the final fleet as well, since they're my two main CVs. Shoukaku's my oldest CV, followed by Kaga and Akagi. Only after them did I get my first CVL. Which is kind of unusual. Then again, I built two CLs before any DD. Naka was my first ever construction result (which is hilarious), followed by Jintsuu.

Honestly, that's not a bad idea. Mods usually show quite well what players actually want, so using those for the minor tweaks and UI changes makes it so they can implement those kinds of changes with far better accuracy relative to player needs. Otherwise it's very easy to fail to consider exactly what players want, since playing as a developer can be very different from playing as a player. Also, WG kind of sucks at interfaces. They've yet to make a team list where you can actually see the names of the players, and the port interface seems to run on sneaker net for confirming button clicks.

What I think is wrong is that it's all based on damage. That's far from the highest priority in a destroyer when it comes to what wins games. It's also more based on tier than performance. I haven't actually played that much since the emblems were introduced so I haven't gotten the required matches in for them, but even someone like me who's only somewhat above average can almost manage the last emblem in DDs, and maybe get it if I try to farm more damage.

I'm mostly surprised by the reasonable remodel levels, compared to how they like to raise those to 50 just for the first one for many ships. Fairly comparable to the Shiratsuyus. Shigure has her luck, Poi has her cruiser-like power, and Murasame and Kawakaze have their additional equips. Art is awesome.

Event done. I finished it with 11 hours left. Had way too much time I couldn't play at all, so time was a bit of concern. Last map had the trolliest pre-boss node so far. Looks reasonably easy; will force you to retreat anyway. New ships for the event, in rough order of appreciation (need to do that sorter again for exact results, naturally): Missed this before. The PvP fleets you meet are just whatever that player has in their first fleet. It's not necessarily what they fight with themselves. When other players fight your fleet there's no effect in the game, other than a message in the log. Most players don't care about rankings or stats, and only do exercises for PvP quests and experience. Personally I often leave Poi as the flagship and one of my level 99 ships as the second ship when I'm not playing. That's standard practice for players who just want to be nice to others encountering their fleet, since you can use almost any fleet to get an easy S-rank for great XP and decent sparkly points. But often times I just have my standard PvP fleet there, which is whatever ship I'm powerleveling (currently Tashkent) followed by other sub-80 ships and my lowest level BB. And if someone has a seasonal CG, I may have that ship as flagship. I've never played without a duck. Back when I started it all, there was Murakumo and there was a duck.

The gains of what? I mean, I've never really had much problems with gaining credits and still just play the ships I want to play. I don't have premium (except occasionally from in-game stuff), and I haven't bought any premium ships. I still earn money at all tiers. I usually use flags and camos at higher tiers, but those you get by just playing the game anyway, so no extra cost there. Sure, I can't buy all the ships I want, and I still need money for ships like Yamato and Gearing, but most of the ships I research I can buy more or less immediately. It's only a problem if you're not particularly good at the game that you may have problems with higher tiers, but low and mid tiers shouldn't be a problem anyway. Finally, most of the time, I don't grind in this game. I play the game. Isn't that why we're here?

It's not too rare to find players who don't know that.

Then you've not read a word I've said. Come back once you have. What's the point of me responding to you when you won't read it anyway? What's the point of arguing if you're just making things up as you go along? I mean, I could throw back all the mud you're slinging around and tell you how wrong you are about just about everything, but what's the point?

Because you see nothing wrong with killing a teammate. Because you think the system is there to punish genuine accidents. Because you think it's okay to punish the rest of the team to satisfy your ego. What's that got to do with what?

I wouldn't go that far, but I did say my conclusion is that it's too much of an advantage and that it should be banned or included in vanilla. As I said, ship angles aren't flat anyway, and you're not likely going in a straight line anyway. I've used it, but as I said, I didn't find that information to be useful enough to change anything I could notice. That's including trying to figure out whether something will autobounce or not. It's not actually that accurate if the ship is changing speeds a lot, and I find that if you're even remotely on target, autoaim will fill in for you. The fact that it will also lie to you on occasion means you're going to miss when you normally would've hit. I'm not either, but I don't think the difference is noticeable. Maybe as training wheels for significantly sub-average players, and maybe for the super unicorn players who can abuse anything they get their hands on, but for the vast majority of players, I don't think it's worth the trouble of doing anything against these mods. X aside.

Those are all technically about clarifying information than giving new information, which is why they're in a grey zone. X mark mod gives more precise information, but it's not information you don't already have. You have ranges on your minimap, and you have a range indicator at the reticle. It probably should be either banned or included in vanilla game, though, since it does clarify things a little too much to be a plain visual mod. Ship angles mod is redundant with the ship direction lines on the minimap (which I believe is also a mod, but not one I've heard people complain about), and both of them clarify the icons on the minimap. It might give you a precise angle, but since ships are not flat rectangles, it's not the angle you're going to hit at. Most likely you'll hit a flatter angle since the bow curves in. I don't think this one gives you an advantage that's significant in any way. I don't use it because I find it useless. Stop lights mod is clarifying the smoke trail. I find it worse than useless, since it doesn't give an accurate representation of what the enemy does. For one, at least the version I tried, tells you the ships are reversing when they're turning. I've also found it inconsistent if I've used it for timing acceleration or braking. Lastly, it's completely pointless if you have torpedoes. The torpedo indicator is far better than any other method of determining speed changes.

You're creating a strawman because you're creating arguments to argue against that I never said. For one, I never said you have to burn a DCP to repair friendly damage. I said you should do that if that benefits the team. If you're not at risk of being fired upon for a minute, then you can safely burn it. If you're get a single friendly fire while you're engaging enemy cruisers, you should probably let that burn and wait for a good opportunity to use DCP, or less it burn out if nothing presents itself. You know, like you would usually play. That's all I'm saying. Basically, if you want to the system to punish players for team damage, then ignore any decisions relating to punishing players, and play only to win the game. If you're actively making a choice to use the system to punish players regardless of whether you think that will help you win the game, then you're not letting the system punish them; you're actively using it. If you have someone causing team damage, it's likely going to be a potato or a rare mistake. It's probably not going to be a deliberate TKer. If it's someone whining about you getting in the way (which is by far the most likely scenario) then it's an idiot. It's also most likely an idiot who's aware that team damage is bad and wants to win the game. That idiot is probably still going to be more useful to the team alive than dead. Or dying by enemy fire, at any rate. In those cases, the best thing to do is to move on and play the game. You're most not likely going to gain anything other than personal satisfaction by using the TK system to kill him. You're most likely going to lose a target for enemy fire, friendly firepower, and points. This is the most likely scenario in my experience. Whether they apologise has very little to do whether they're going to be a further menace to the team. Yes, they can turn out to be complete idiots who'll try their best, intentionally or not, to throw the game. But most likely they won't. Why would you base your assumption on the worst case scenario rather than the most likely scenario? In most cases where I have a careless second line torper on my team, they end up not hitting allies nearly as much as to justify removing them from the game. Ignoring that person, and using chat to politely instruct him of his errors (may or may not include petty sarcasm depending on my mood) is usually the best option. Most players will still aim in the general direction of the enemy, and will probably deal some damage to them with guns, and act as a distraction for your allies. And yes, point loss is a concern. If that puts me into a place where I have to choose whether to take a torpedo from that idiot or from an enemy, I'll most likely choose the friendly torpedo. It's going to hurt less, and, especially if I'm not spotted, it's going to give less information to the enemies. If I'm not under fire, I'll probably repair the flooding, since this assumes I'm a first line ship which means DD with short DCP cooldown. Or if I'm in something like the Edinburgh then I might just let it flood since I can repair it anyway, and the heals are more often limited by what damage I can heal than the heal's max potential. I also stand a good chance of getting medals and flags out of that if I play the rest of the game carefully enough. Unless those ignore team damage; not sure. Doesn't really matter, though. I'm not sure; I wasn't there. For one, if someone's torping their own CV, they're a clearly deliberate teamkiller rather than an accidental idiot. I'm also not quite sure how the pink system works with regards to damage taken, hits, and reflected damage. The best thing to do in that situation is probably to make yourself immune to damage from that TKer so you can ignore him for the rest of the game, and you do so by taking as little damage as possible, whichever that method is. After that, you play considering him like an enemy except you'll lose points if he dies. If you need to launch planes, you extinguish a fire. If you can pick a choice that will let you win the game, do that. It may end up choosing to kill him is the best choice, or it may not. It's also likely he'll kill himself regardless of what you do. As I said, I wasn't there. At the end of it, choose what you think will win you the game, not what will punish the TKer. That's all. However, running into deliberate TKers like that is the exception, so it's not a good situation to judge how to handle team damage in general. The idiots are far, far more common. Does that explain what my argument is?

Could you two, you know, read what I actually said instead of fashioning this evil one-sided strawman? Or is that the only thing you can argue against? A construct of your own imagination? You just hit the quote button once or twice and pretend you're responding to that post.

I want people who do team damage to be punished. I don't want irresponsible and selfish people to punish them and the rest of the team. Yes, you're doing the punishing the moment you stop caring about whether to repair a fire or not depending on who started it. That's what it comes down to: Are you playing to win the game, or are you playing to punish someone for some infraction with no consideration for the rest of the team? If you chose to do team damage over what you think is the best course of action, it's the latter, and you're punishing the entire team by doing so, regardless of what justifications you come up with. If that's the only thing you can think of and understand from my post, which is probably explained by the image showing your incomprehension, then you're probably better off playing something single player.

I'm saying you should keep playing the game normally. Repair if you think that's the best option. Don't if you don't. But don't take more damage than that, or reflect damage, just because you want to punish someone. That's punishing the entire team. It's not any better than teamkilling someone you think is useless. I know lots of people who don't say anything because of a variety of reasons. They might not understand the language, they might think it doesn't help anyway, they might have chat turned off, or they might be chat banned. If you think one player not caring for the team justifies you not caring for the team, then you don't have the intent to teach someone. You have the intent to punish for purely selfish reasons.

No, it's not. I don't care about forgiving anyone. I'm talking about you intentionally doing team damage and willingly being a detriment to your team. The moment you stop playing to win and start using the system to punish someone is the moment you lose all moral ground you have to accuse someone of being careless. Nope. I mean to argue that when you stop playing for the team you're in no position to complain about people not playing for the team. People doing team damage should be punished. You shouldn't punish the rest of the team because of it.

Why don't I get to call you out on your petty revenge that you try to justify it by throwing the blame on the system? It'd be one thing if you'd owe up to what you're doing, but this behaviour is on par with people blaming others for running into their torps.

And you think the proper response is to be an even bigger menace to the whole team? I definitely agree that people who're excessively careless need to be punished, but by deliberately doing the exact same thing to the rest of the team you show that you're trying to compete for the title worst team player with that player. So, what's worst, doing it by accident, or deliberately? You mean the one where you reserved your right to be indignant about it and punish the entire team just because someone doesn't grovel properly? Do you realise how arrogant you came off there? That's what made it sound more like personal revenge than trying to teach someone a fair lesson. I mean, I'm not going to say I've never done it myself, but I've never thought myself to be the better person for it, and that's what made me realise just how bad it is.

This is a good reason to change how it works. Players intentionally using the mechanic to do even more team damage just to get revenge on someone isn't what the game needs.