AnotherDuck

A high number of DDs isn't really that much of a problem. DDs counter each other very well when there are a lot of them. Compare that with BBs, that counter CAs and CLs very well no matter numbers, and only once those are sunk, they counter each other. The real problem is the lack of CAs and CLs. Considering how ships interact, those should be the most numerous. Hopefully a sustained high number of DDs will reduce the number of BBs and bring out more CAs and CLs.

In one word, no. In two words, [edited]no. No, since that's not even the point. You try to go with arguments in the far corners of possibility, but forget the entire middle of it. You don't have to have a reasonable chance of success. I'm arguing against encouraging it in the first place. You want to encourage playing for yourself rather than for the team. You want to encourage camping and trying to stay alive at the cost of the team. You want to encourage a worse meta. But you probably won't even realise it yourself, so if you don't understand it at this point, I don't think you'll ever do. Look at any season of Ranked. You can choose to go for the objectives, or you can choose to go for the top position to not lose a star. Play for the team, or play for your own benefit at the cost of everyone else. The latter is what medals like this encourages.

Almost as if the battleships drive away all cruisers, leaving only destroyers to fill out the slots...

And yet people do it for quests. I can't say I'm a mind reader, so I can't tell you their intentions, but I can say I've certainly seen one or both of the last two ships in that case run for the border. So no, I can't agree that it doesn't happen. But most of the lack of trying comes from how rare the situation where you can even try for it is. You need to come into a 1vs4 situation you've got a chance of winning, and that takes a lot of random chance throughout the match. If people smell that, I can definitely say some would go for it. On the other hand, something like getting way more XP than anyone else can be much easier to achieve if you try to farm it from the start, which would affect the entire match, rather than just the end of it, and because of that, it would affect far more matches. Are you seriously comparing getting twice the XP of anyone else in the team with Solo Warrior? I've gotten Solo Warrior once, and only a few close shots at it. Twice the XP I get occasionally. More than anyone in the enemy team not quite so often, but it happens.

You both missed the point entirely. Encouraging farming XP means encouraging camping and trying to stay alive above actually helping the team. They don't have to actually succeed at it. The problem lies with all people trying but failing at it. It's like whenever there are missions that require kills, as then you see a lot of people trying their best to kill-steal while holding their fire and ignoring other more important threats.

I tend to do it the other way around. One salvo first, then two more. First salvo is easier to hit with, since it's more likely that the BB is unaware. Second salvo you're more likely to face an evading BB, so two salvos help there. And as the example earlier mentioned, you don't need more than one hit each time.

Unless they fix the XP rewards to reflect how much you actually do for your team winning, I'm going to have to say no on this. As it is, selfish play is rewarded more than team play, so encouraging that only leads to more crap teams.

I find Shima to be very useful for flooding damage, despite the high torpedo damage chunking off large portions of the HP. You always meet top tier ships, so they have a lot of HP. Shima also has three salvos available without the limitation of the Torpedo Reload Booster. It's also a relatively fast ship, so it's easier to get into flanking positions where you have a better target on battleships. Once you learn how to not fire everything at once, you find that you get rack up tons of flooding damage once in a while. It still takes a bit of luck, because IJN torpedoes, but on the whole I find it's more reliable than the TRB DDs. Not that those are bad at it either, since 4x4 can easily do the same (and one reason I think the 30 second TRB wasn't really much worse than the 5 second one), but you don't have access to that as often as 3x5.

My main question is why WG would introduce high-stealth torpedoes like this after a long campaign to make IJN DD torpedoes obsolete. You know, the DD line that's supposed to specialise in torpedoes. And most other lines get more or less equivalent torps anyway, while also having much better guns. While the new DD line seems very uneven from what I've seen of it, they seem overall to have many strengths and few weaknesses, where lack of torping other DDs is the main weakness. Other than that, they seem to be average at worst, borderline OP at best.

In general, pre-nerf "split/balance adjustment" IJN DDs. More specifically I'm comfortable with a bunch of ships. Umikaze, old Isokaze, Bismarck, Kongo, Fuso, old Shiratsuyu, Yuugumo, Kamikaze.

The average player learns where the borders are and how to head for them fairly quickly. Slightly more competent players learn it depending on class. Destroyers and cruisers with floaty guns tend to learn the islands better, since they're more reliant on them. Battleships mostly don't care that much. Carriers don't care at all. It doesn't really take that long to learn a map. Just play it a few times to get the basics down, and some ten to twenty times more to figure out some intermediate and advanced strategies. It depends on what detail you're talking about. A perhaps more relevant question is how fast the average player learns how to use islands in a more general sense, and that depends entirely on the player. If you're competent enough to ask a question about it on the forums, you're probably not going to take that long. Compared to WoT there's more dynamic positioning, and static gameplay only really sets in on some top tier games.

The strange thing about Yorck is that you're either a long-range HE spammer, or a short-range AP brawler. Mid range is kind of iffy, since it's too far for the AP to be really effective, and the HE isn't really any better than at long range. I don't find accuracy to be much of a problem, though. I actually find that Yorck is the ship the most similar to Myoko. The guns are reasonably similar, and both are relatively tanky for cruisers (Yorck has good armour, and Myoko has good health). Myoko's got a wider turning radius but a faster rudder. Torp angles are far better in Yorck, but aren't nearly as powerful.

I had a similar game, but the difference was that I was in the lone Leander, against a Kongo, a Dunkerque, and a Gnevny. Another difference was that while we had a point lead, but they had two caps and would get enough points to turn around by the end of the game. So unlike your example, I didn't have a choice. Charged the Dunkerque, lost most of my health, but did a drive-by torp kill. Gnevny tried to hide in smoke. You know, against a cruiser with sonar. With just the Kongo left it was the time to not be greedy. Only too bad there were three ships and not four, since that meant no Solo Warrior. Then again, might not have survived that. This is the reason for many losses, I find. One team gets greedy, and decides to risk a clear victory. Because that's never backfired.

Only solution is to make all maps Ocean. Completely balanced and realistic.

Can't even manage to use the forums properly and still thinks it's justifiable to troll others for something he's got absolutely no clue about why it happened. There's one thing if someone fires torpedoes where you're actually sailing, but if you're deliberately trying to catch torpedoes just to cause damage to your own team, you're about as constructive as players who announce locations of hidden ships in global chat (you know, one of the things that contributed to the removal of global chat in WoT), stream snipers, and other scum. That's the kind of player that should be permanently banned from the game.

More importantly, taking on three ships on your own and coming out ahead is more fun.

That's because you forgot to read the line that said, "For professional use only."

Sometimes it's worth it even if it's a one-to-one trade. Not all ships are equal. Once, on Trap, I went around the island in the middle of B and rushed a Baltimore, which got me killed, but not before I got the torpedo salvo off to net myself a It's Just a Flesh Wound. Thing is, I was in the Yorck, which is two tiers lower, and I had less health to begin with. That gave us the cap he blocked, as well as the safety of our destroyers with one enemy radar gone. Team didn't screw up, and we won. The "team screwing up" bit is why I usually try to avoid trading, even if it's two to one. No matter how confident you may be that your team should win, the Gambler's Rule of Luck says you just used up your team's luck, which means you're promptly going to lose.

And a 90% chance of something worse than Tears of the Cruisers. Now, stop for a bit and imagine what that map would look like. Just don't look at me; I'm stumped.

I very rarely bother with Vigilance. Most of the time I can either dodge the torpedoes anyway, or it's already too late. It doesn't make enough of a difference. There's pretty much always some other skill to invest in, that will make a difference more of the time. The way I play Bismarck I don't really get shot at more without any stealth modifiers, camo aside. Even with both skill and upgrade I'm still be spotted most of the time anyway, so I decided to focus more on secondaries and survival more. With the extra stacking of the other stuff, Vigilance makes a bit of sense, but it might be overkill.

I find destroyer play on that map to be what's actually interesting. It's horrible for cruisers, and plain dull for battleships. I have bad luck. I've gotten Ocean maybe once the past year. It's a much better map than Tears of the Cruisers, Mountain Range, or North.

I don't think the new smoke mechanic changed that much. Sure, it makes it less effective to smoke for your heavy ships, but that also makes them less prone to eating torpedoes whenever you do. As for the Benson, one of the most enjoyable ships in the game. The first thing I noticed was the rapid turret traverse. The second thing was that the torpedoes weren't so much reloaded as they were rebuilt from scratch. But they're still good. The only German CA you should spec for HE is Yorck, but that's an oddball in the line. But it's not that clear-cut to just spec for your strengths. If you've got crap turret traverse or rudder shift, or something else like that, you might want to spec into alleviating some of that. However, when it comes to the overall build, focusing on your strengths generally leads to a better experience with the ship.

This is probably why you get chatbanned again and again. Probably not for a singular incident like the one you described here.

It also helps to tell your teammates to focus down the radar cruisers. Can't do as much for ships that don't deserve radar in the first place, like Missouri and Black, unless they play carelessly (although the latter will probably be targeted anyway if spotted).

I used to run the Torpedo Reload Booster back before the line split, when Kagero was T9 and had the 30 second TRB. What I've found is that which is best depends on your playstyle. I play a lot relying on stealth and spotting outside smoke, so since I don't use that smoke normally, the TRB is a more natural choice for me. Someone who relies more on smoke will probably take a dive in survivability with the TRB. If you want to learn how to use TRB, learn how to get away from situations without using smoke, and more importantly, how to not get into them in the first place. Map awareness, exit strategies, stuff like that. It's also where Radio Location can be very helpful. You also have the best concealment in the game of any tier you meet, so take advantage of that.