DFens_666

Well, the question is: Why was he AFK? The game just likes to crash, for others more often. Punishing them certainly is not right.

Im not toxic by default, and i absolutely hate people who come into a game and start spewing insults left and right because they had bad game(s) before that. I agree, it drags down the team and makes it more likely that theyll lose again. I try to give constructive help if i have time to do so. But i can be salty afterwards if people play like absolute dogs**t. I think that depends where we are coming from. And right now, having roflstomps left and right is just bad, a lot of people agree with that. But a lot of people think, skillbased MM is a solution to roflstomps - which it is not, and it would be horrible for the game. Thats why i thought about this proposal. If it occasionally would happen, would it be bad? Thats why i wrote that in the first place. But people who spam xx games per hour, just dieing over and over need to get told: Hey, maybe its not right what you are doing? They do it, because they can.

And with that, i disagree. If 3-5 of my ships die before the 5 minute mark, and the enemies dont have to leave their spawn because of those, than i have a hard time doing anything myself without yoloing aswell. However, if my team doesnt die, i have more time to get something done myself, i.e. create an advantage for my team. Cant do that if half my team is dead. Just an example from yesterday, which is not that great because its lowtiers (and my original proposal is more for hightiers anyway): - 3CV / 4 DD / 2 BB / 2 Cruiser game on T4. By the time, we killed their Phoenix, which was actually quite fast, we basicly lost all our DDs. They straightlined into their death, taking torps - they didnt do anything. We were down 5 or 6 ships vs 1 one of them very fast. No chance to win, because the CVs started whacking me, even tho i still managed a Kraken after that. So if my DDs wouldnt have died, i think we would have won.

At this point, id prefer that really. Imo there is nothing worse than having a lost game after 3-4 mins, because its not possible to turn it around.

Ofc individual players - no need to punish the whole team, as i cant choose with whom im playing (unlike CBs, where i know the people im playing with) Ive never understood the problem about being bullied. Why care what they say? Its not like it can physically harm you. If they overstep it: Report them to the support, done that a few times. Definetely didnt say 5 minutes. And obviously, you could make a debate what the time limit might be. Everything below 2 mins would ofc be stupid. I dont get why you would do the complete opposite: Its like, either go in and die or sit in the back. You can do everything without dieing right away, you just need to think one step ahead. If i want to get a cap in a DD, should i steam full ahead, go further and further when i dont see anything, and suddenly get radared without a chance of turning away anymore, or should i maybe turn in advance so i can run away faster? Its not rocket science imo. And people who dont want to think how they play in a teamgame deserve to get punished for it. Thats my stand on it. Frequently people are whining about matches being roflstomps ending in 6 minutes. Why do roflstomps happen? Because half the team suicides too fast. But trying to find solutions (which are already in place in other gamemodes) is not ok either... whatever

Fine with me, let people scout who actually are able to do it without dieing. You could even hope, that BBs manage to move a bit further ahead since they dont see enemies at 25km and can snipe them from there. But i think im dreaming right now So then tell me: Why people rush in and die 2 minutes into the game? What is their goal while playing? They play 2 mins, but all the loading and waiting takes more time. AFK people get 0 XP btw. And ive won games with an entire 3x division being AFK on my side. Yet, winning a game with half your team dead after 5 mins is almost impossible, and happens much more often than having 3 AFK ships. The issue with getting more than 300XP: If the game runs for more than 15mins or so (im not sure exactly) but the game seems to give our more XP. Ive had a game where i didnt do anything, died quite early but got >1000 XP. I think the game ran full 20 mins or atleast close to it. Would need to see if i made a screenshot from it.

Why should it affect you in any way? And economics is EXACTLY the issue with bad play. They play bad, because they dont care and can still advance through the tiers. Ive even done the math, spamming games is favourable if you are a bad player, as its highly unlikely that you will earn tons of XP. Ive even seen people admitting that... Imo thats 2 seperate issue: - If it happens SOMETIMES to a certain play -> you can live with that. - If it happens all the time to the same player -> He should get punished for that and rethink his approach. Thats a different issue. Besides, its not about either dieing in 1,5 mins or not doing anything. You are deliberately ignoring to play NORMALY because you want to make a point. Also, i can work around people sitting in the back. I cant work around having 5 deadships in 3 minutes, as the game will end 3 mins later because we dont have any points left. So you cant scout without dieing? Interesting concept... You are trying to make points, which arent there. And on the other hand, those are exactly the people that need to get punished because they ruin the game for everyone.

Sometimes you get those people, who deliberately do something stupid, and you ask them, why did they do it and you get an answer like "I play 4 fun". Which even indicates, people who play for the objective/team dont have fun playing the game Thats actually not true. Best players can even get ~70% Solo WR (lets ignore CVs here, which can go beyond that). While worst players are somewhere at ~40%. That means, you will always lose some matches no matter what, and you will win matches even if you would be AFK. And the others, you can influence based on skill. Its roughly 1/3 for each (loss/win/own contribution)

Accurate in what regard? Average stats? In that regard, wows.numbers is not that great, because it contains all the data regardless of changes/meta... Try http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html for weekly/monthly average stats, so buffs/nerfs are shown in the performance.

That would probably be a good idea to balance teams... dont put all DDs in one team who have a life expectancy of 1,5 mins

You think that will change anything? The best WG will do with our ideas is wipe their b*ttholes with it The worst part for good players is being stuck with bad players who dont give a f*ck about the game "uh i play 4 fun, so i can ruin the game for 11 other players" So there are 2 options: People like @Saltface ask for advice and gitgud and being respected members of the community or other people who keep sucking in a teamgame because they dont give a crap... they will receive a similar response. Either you can take it - or not. But stop blaming others if you dont care about your performance in a TEAMGAME in the first place.

Thats why we have people with 500 games on TX who suck donkeyd*ck

Except for the arcs, you might aswell be describing Minotaur. Mino has more DPM anyway 600k vs 554k on Smolensk (thats AP) or 383k (HE). Mino can even stealthtorp And has more torps!! and is more stealthy But srsly, Radar Mino has MUCH more game influence than Smolensk. And is actually fun to play compared to Smolensk. Kill DDs with Radar mino, then you can do what you want.

You must be the first one who thinks, Stalingrad is fun to play in randoms Almost everyone i know says: Stalingrad is unfun to play, and Bourgogne is TONS of fun. The only thing Stalingrad can do is: win games because turds are obsessed with you. @Yedwy From what ive heard: Thunderer is the much better ship now compared to Ohio. Its like Colbert and Smolensk

Are you trolling me? Not sure what the Atago has to do with anything? Is he supposed to be with the Atago or...? GL catching that Atago? If he is supposed to get to the Bismarck, then its bad news aswell. Im pretty sure there is no way possible that he could have gotten towards any T8 ship with the way he spawned, espcially since they are all moving away from him. Yes, if the Bismarcks would have moved towards him, then possibly yes - but they didnt. And then its still questionable if that would have helped anything. Must be the worst logic ive ever seen: Because some highertier ships are your counter, then lowtier ships are free farm without retaliation Apparently, T6 Cruisers in T8MM arent getting shafted enough anyway...

I think german torp tubes are made out of wet toilet paper. Others are atleast dry toilet paper First realized on Hindenburg (but it kinda happened at some point, not all the time) when i basicly never finished a game with all torplaunchers intact. Often 2 destroyed, sometimes even more TBH, this needs to be changed. We cant have ships lose Torptubes/guns permanently. Ive seen DDs lose both torptubes AND guns PERMANENTLY while getting attacked by rockets from a CV. Its REDICULOUS!!!

im just gonna say: I dont play a hightier division without BB anymore. You need a decent BB, because 95% of BB players suck (especially on T9-10). Same goes for DDs. Cruisers a little bit less, but why not take one as 3rd. Could take a CV ofc. You could substitute a DD for radar mino on the other hand. Less risky than a DD IMO, and more powerful. The problem with BBs is, that they both need and enable teamplay. If your team doesnt help you, you are screwed. Same way your team is screwed if BBs sit uselessly somewhere on the map farming their damage from maxrange. Most important is map control, so having BBs all over the map is to be desired (when does that ever happen tho...). But for a BB to stay there, he needs screening against enemy DDs otherwise its too vulnerable and has to abandon the position. You often see a complete lack of map control when you have 4 or even all 5 BBs sitting on one square behind an island. Happened not too long ago to me on Atlantic, they all went to an island north of C and sit there. They didnt even stop 3-4 ships at C. Meanwhile, Enemies pushed from A and B into our spawn and boxed us in. Lost on points pretty fast.

The cheaper Coal ships are already a bit older - and were normal premiums to buy with money (doubloons) or available through grinds. So i guess putting them there doesnt hurt WG much. I think the newest is Charleston, but Aigle, Okto, Yubari and Campbeltown are in the game for quite a long time (more or less). The T9-10 Coal ships are new and shiny, so people either grind or buy a few boxes to get the coal needed to get them. I dont see much reason for WG to make T7-8 Coal ships, as the earnings wouldnt be that great. Also they would be competing with T8 ships in premium shop (why buy one for 50~ bucks if you can grind one 4 free?). I think T8 ships are the most profitable money ships for WG (yes, they do sell T9s aswell, but fewer and you cant buy them always f.e. Alaska is not available right now)

You gotta take a looooooong look in the mirror my friend. You are one of those 11 (now 12) players you are complaining about.

Been thinking about something similiar, since WG doesnt really want to reward spotting/tanking as much: Give an extra reward for most spotting/tanking for both teams. Maybe a bit extra XP or something + an achievement. That way, you could atleast give SOME rewards for it... and not only for damage

Probably they all pity the people playing Cruisers, so you cant be mad at them. If literally everything shits on you these days...

Well, i meant for those players who actually try to snipe the enemy CV. Its not like they gonna succeed with it 10 Sprint games with Enty, they attempted it 3 times so far IIRC. Right from the get go.

Then you gotta tell what its best in your mind. Its not as clear cut as it might seem, even if you would try to make it better. You would need to see the entire result from the other players to make up your own mind. I dont think WG needs to enforce even more toxicity, its already pretty bad.

What is "best" ? You wanna see who dealt most damage? I dont think they will include that, because it would cause even more toxicity (f.e. all my BBs have miserable damage output). XP gain tells you something if you have an eye out for what happened in the battle. A backline sniping BB can get high XP - doesnt mean he was really useful, or might even have cost you the game. But still he got rewarded for it.

So if you are having fun, and a lot of people are frustrated, which would make you also quit the game, why do you expect others to keep playing so you can have fun? That would be, if i would be playing board games with other people and id keep cheating. And then i expect them to play with me, because its fun for me but not fun for them You wish Idiots still try to snipe the enemy CV, despite CVs being basicly untouchable by planes Quite funny, that this never happened. Arguably, even the opposite happened. You see, bad RTS CV players were completely stomped by better players. But a bad player meeting another bad player meant, both could actually get SOME damage in, because even autodrop assured much more damage than they get in now. A bad reworked CV player will simply die to flak before he gets a drop in - ever. Thats why we see player with abysmal average damage, while even worst RTS Midway players had 40-50k avg damage. Worst reworked Midway players get like half of that. They cant even get a drop off, or if they manage it, they might still miss. @Redcap375 yeah i know But i guess trying to show him why CVs are toxic doesnt work.