Tatsfield

Never understood the worry about "kill stealing". Firstly it's a team game and sinking enemy ships only benefits the team. Personal rewards are about damage, so if you've damaged an enemy to within 10 HP of his life and someone finishes him of, the team benefits from game points and you've got most of the damage that you could inflict on the dead enemy. Why would you worry about the odd 10 HP and red ribbon which gives you nothing unless you are on some ribbon winning mission and in that case you should have sunk the enemy and not left him sculling about ripe for the first single shell to hit him? Players that worry about such insignificances either don't understand the game or are personality disordered. Just ignore them and they will go away .

No, I am hooked on WoW but its the dodgy cartoon girls with silly voices that bemuses me!

People actually put in work to achieve this nonsense? The whole thing seems like a distasteful fetish. Why would anyone want to admit to being involved with it in any way? Please don't anyone try to explain this fixation as it can only make it worse!

WG originally decided to penalise ships which hit the border by cutting the engine power to 50%. That means that firstly they do see hitting the border as being worthy of a penalty and secondly they were prepared to impose one. Now that hitting the border is not just about running out of playing space and not being sufficiently careful to avoid doing so but contains an element of advantage if a technique is applied, WG should work in accordance with the first precept and raise the penalty in accordance with the second. This is not a new principle but the development of an existing one. Since they already have a mechanism to detect the contact with the boundary and another to alter the state of the ship, it cannot be a very extensive or complicated problem to extend this to making the penalty more than just a transient disadvantage like temporary loss of engine power but one that reduces the players survival chances or game winning ability. Automatic reduction of HP would seem to be the simplest thing to do and if it were easy to do it could be done on an accelerating rate so that staying for a really long time would sink the ship. This could disadvantage DDs etc more than BBs but since it is the smaller vessels which can use the border mechanics to gain an advantage, that seems fair. Vessels with low HP would be taking a serious risk by approaching the boundary but that would stop them running away when their HP got low. If we'd have had this system from day one, I doubt whether anyone would be complaining about it as it would be as accepted as loosing the 50% engine power. I didn't plough through the whole thread so if this possible solution has been discussed earlier, I apologise.

I'd love to have an opinion on this but I don't understater all the abbreviations that are used. pvp, pve, exp, kpi. And what did the game designer do that he has to apologise to the 3D modeller? Sounds like a riddle out of a Xmas cracker! And when I do learn what all this means, will I feel any better?

This part of the provided game play and is available to all as part of the provided game play. Finding ways to tweek the graphics to eliminate something that is part odf the provided game play is different as it revolves around stepping out of the provided game play to achieve it. I see the non detonation signal as something similar to playing against a provided ship that has a better spec than mine. I don't see that as cheating however annoying it can be. If WG provided a button on the screen which allowed you to improve the visibility, it would be there for all and everyone could use it, but they don't. If they did I suppose it would negate the entire weather concept. There are many things in WoW which we may not like but you can't go around and accuse people of cheating by using a provided feature which isn't like doctoring the graphics settings. So the question is, at what point does it become acceptable to doctor the graphics to defeat the weather feature?

I don't like the reduced visibility that the bad weather brings and I do sympathise with older players about sight issues as I am certainly an older player! But I do worry about the ability to reduce in-game effects that should be standard for all players. I don't like to think that while I'm squinting to see the bow outline of a target to evaluate my shooting lead, other players are able to see my outline in their binoculars as clear as day. If there were ways of making shells home onto citadels automatically, everyone would complain about those players who availed themselves of the option but when WG introduce a realism aspect to the game, no one sees anything wrong with players dumbing down the realism to gain an advantage. If the weather visibility parameters can be negated, WG shouldn't put them in and if they insist on putting them in, they should remove any way which their effects can be reduced. Prowess in this game should be measured by skill under a commonly played operating system and not by an ability to manipulate the way it works because although I have never ever posted complaining about "cheating", isn't that the definition of cheating?

As a BB driver, the speed differential between forge ahead DDs and struggling old BBs always irks me when the DDs call for support and are receding into the distance at a differential rate of 20 knots which is about as fast as some of my BBs can travel flat out. If then, in desperation to give them cover, I make a half turn to broadside towards their opposition and fire long range to give the minimal help that I can at that range, I then get accused of hanging back to avoid damage. If I plough on and only have the front turrets to use, my efforts are inadequate at that range with fewer shells and the DDs do not get the support that they have demanded. I think it is the job of cruisers to support DDs because they have the speed. On the other hand, if a BB wants support from a DD, perhaps to help protect against an enemy DD torpedo attack, it is very rare for DDs to turn around from their high speed fun run and come back to help their big fat brothers. They don't seem to think the support system cuts both ways. Sorry I just needed the rant.

Sea Ram maximum speed mach 2.8 . Hypersonic anti ship missiles are reputed to achieve mach 5 so a RAM has to engage an HASM head on at a closing speed of mach 7.8, which doesn't bode well for acquisition and convergence. It certainly doesn't have the ability to chase it if it misses. Maybe stealth is the only protection against such high speed weapons and if so perhaps Dreadnaught 2050 might become a necessity.

No it isn't and no it doesn't and that's way more polite than accusing your entire reply of being pointless! Boredom is an affliction of the over privileged young who can be bored with everything that doesn't pander to their personal satisfaction. And since I'm not applying that remark to you personally, it's not as impolite as it could have been. Having to battle against and lose to a superior opponent may not satisfy the aspiring winner but it doesn't mean that is isn't interesting.

I'd like to offer a counter point to the criticism of the MM system. It is this. There is no reason why in a battle mode called random the two teams have to be balanced. If the makeup of the teams was purely random, one side would stand a pretty good chance of being trashed but if the selection was truly random, individual players would all have an equal chance in games of being on the stronger side and the more times they were on the weaker side they would eventually even up the outcome as they picked up more allocations to stronger teams. If you played hundreds of battles, your chances of being on the stronger side would be 50% because your chance of being on the stronger side is the same for every player and there are only two sides and if you're not on one, you're on the other one. Once those players, who seem to think that WoW is some sort of artificial match with even numbers of players on each side with equal ships, adjusted to the random nature of the game they might enjoy the challenge of a weaker team beating a stronger one because of player skill and not off the shelf fire power. A lot of players will not accept this because they live their entire lives fixating on what is fair in a world where very little is actually fair but expect the virtual world of WoW to offer them that fairness that they crave. Warfare is all about harnessing unfairness to beat the enemy. Successful warriors plan their battles so that when they meet the enemy they outnumber him and preferably are in a position to shoot him in the back before he can respond. It might be construed to be unfair if it turned out that the weaker team had a high proportion of top class players who more than equalised the apparent deficit of their vessels. But whatever happened in this scenario, random would really mean random is all aspects of the game and no one knowing that there was no balance could whinge about the MM set up. Asymmetric mode started to go towards this but there was still an MM aspect and there was still an outburst from the "fair brigade" that somehow they were being deprived of their gaming rights. I really liked Asymmetric and would not have worried about it being even more asymmetric than it was. If WoW rewarded players for their skill, team play and personal results, it might not matter if players were on the losing team so long as they enjoyed the battle. I don't expect the conventional forum jockeys to accept this treatise but then mindsets tend to be fixed, especially by the aspect of "fairness" As they say in exam questions; discuss!

My CPU is only an i5 with an internal 4600 GPU. The CPU runs hot when playing WoW and the GPU is running at 100%. I cleaned out the case about 6 months ago. Perhaps I need to consider a more powerful CPU with a separate gaming suitable GPU. The machine was always a general purpose computer and not configured for gaming but it managed WoW for over 3 years without problems, so either the hardware is deteriorating or WoW is now demanding more processing power, or probably both!

I have had this problem and I found that if I minimised all the graphics settings it didn't occur but as soon as I raised any of them the screen froze when there was extensive graphics action such as explosions or several ships on screen firing broadsides with flames and clouds of smoke and fires. It's a bit galling to see my screen in low res and know that there are really good high res graphics available that I cannot use. This all started about two months ago.

I loved it. It made a lot more sense than Random where there are two matched teams like a rugby match and the worst one loses. Most complaints about Asymmetric revolved around the bots which were not there as part of the mode but to make up numbers when not enough players opted for something new and a little worrying. Actually this would also be true of every battle mode if it was under subscribed, bots are used to make up the numbers. WG worried too much about how unpopular the mode was going to be and tried to bribe players to play low tier and limit others from playing high tier with silly battle tokens. I suppose all this was because the whole exercise was to study how the mode could play and how it worked and they couldn't wait for it to gain popularity over a long period of time. Actually it looked like it was gaining popularity and the only criticisms left were about how unprofitable it might be to play, which is pretty lame as a critique of a new and interesting battle mode. I for one hope it comes back with lessons learned. Hopefully that will be the case as it was only set up to learn lessons. If you think about it there is absolutely no reason why opposing battle fleets should have almost identical constituents if they can be balanced in other ways that do not depend on identical numbers with almost identical opposing vessels. Asymmetric opened up all sorts of new tactics needed to play numerically different opposing forces. There are a lot more ways to balance asymmetric fleets than just having a small high tier force opposing a larger low tier force. I'm hoping WG play around with the possibilities and produce a permanent battle mode where battles are not always so damn repetitive, win or lose. There are a lot of possibilities. One is to have a lack of balance but reward the disadvantaged team disproportionately well for winning. That would be a real challenge for the underdogs and very satisfying if they pull it off. It would stop players looking at the game as a sort of naval football match rather than a naval warfare game. And in conclusion,

Anything which improves immersion is great with me. Unfortunately I'm having to run the game on the lowest graphics level to prevent it from freezing and costing me pink points to escape, so much of the improved graphics are wasted on me.

Since I am the F2P player that WG hate, I suppose all of this is being done to undermine my few hard worked for 19 point commanders. I suppose I shall just have to forget about tuning the commander skills I want and go back to losing more often, as if I don't lose enough now!

Last night I was the only human player on the standard battle map in Co-op. It was interesting seeing what the 8 robots on my side and the 9 enemy did. They seemed to be destruction focussed and made no early attempt to approach the bases. They rammed each other disproportionally to normal play but when there were very few ships left on either side they headed for the bases without trying to intercept each other. Only the CVs continued to attack incoming enemies and at the very end while I was in the enemy base the sole enemy vessel was siting in our base and should have won by about 15 seconds on the capping countdown but right at the last moment he seemed to leave the base and gave the victory to us. It was very strange. Perhaps the AI decided to make a last minute attempt to cross the entire map and stop us from capping rather than just sit tight and win. I tried to see if when I called for support this would have an effect on my bot teammates but they were very human and just ignored me!

Yes we won because the enemy bot capping our base left the base and allowed our cap to take the victory. It wasn't a great battle because I was experimenting with what the AI was doing so actually if the last bot hadn't "changed sides" at the last minute, I would have lost.

I asked this question bur no one answered it. Please, if you can advise, do so now before a new torrent of techno babble swamps this thread! Thank you.

Will this fix solve my total screen unrecoverable screen freeze which is costing me mega pink penalties if I close the game during the 20 minute battle period? My fix has been to run at absolute minimum graphics but this somewhat destroys much of the immersive reality of the game.

That's just the sort of answer I don't need and cannot handle! Simple stupid for me please.

I don't skipper CVs at all, so my interest is solely in how I can help my team mates when they are under air attack. I can understand that the direction from where the AA fire originates is of less importance as the "gunners" place the bursting rounds in the path of the planes and do not aim directly at them as they have to be led by a considerable amount because they are moving so fast. So flack bursts are what they are, where they are, and have nothing to do with from where they have come. Funnily enough that sounds just like reality so WG can't have got it that wrong. But as I don't really understand the mechanics of the game, is there a simple rule of thumb that one ship can adopt to help another who is under air attack? Do a couple of BBs steaming together pose a greater threat to incoming aircraft? I always supposed that they did but at what space should they sail to maximise the effect. If there is some guideline here, I'll not worry about all the rest of this thread which seems to be trying to define how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!

Stop worrying about the "free" stuff and get on with enjoying playing the game if you can. For example, I play most of my time with T5 BBs because I enjoy the styles of game that they can play and if I don't qualify for "free" stuff because I would need to play other ships, I just don't care very much. Pavlov never played very much WoW anyway as there were only T2 ships in his time!

I am about to gain the last point for an 19 point commander for my Fred the Grocer. I will have 4 unassigned points and would value advice as to whether the points would be best used to add Fire Prevention to reduce the max number of fires or to split them between High Alert to reduce damage control time and Jack of all Trades to reduce consumable loading time. I'm looking at a tank bias.

Thanks for the advice. I will go for FP and complete my BB 19 point commander.