Saltface

Lets put your theory to the test. Assume two players. CV Player A and CV Player B. Player A avoids easily the majority of AA fire (which is generated by the system NOT the target player) and lands his ordnance nice and clean on his target. And boasts a very healthy WR. Player B does not avoid the majority of AA fire (which is generated by the same system as for player A) loses his planes and his attacks are ineffective and boasts a red WR. Now, I am confident that Player A played correctly and Player B misplayed. Since Player A manages to avoid AA fire (which is system generated, therefore it is standard and not depending on the ability of the target) there is a correct play. Lets see now, wonder oh wonder, the second part of your allegations. That throttle and rudder can stand in as AA or to be fair as tools to avoid strikes not AA per se. Unfortunately, math proves you wrong. Only torpedoes can be dodged and to be honest a good torp drop will not be dodged. Tell us how long an attack run lasts in seconds, how much correction can the CV player make and what speed change or course change you will achieve (as a target) in the few seconds a CV attack lasts. Take serious note here that you really don't need to dodge a bad players attack. Bad players make messy attacks. No need to dodge. And I have personal experience with my AA set ups. Against a good player they are useless. If the CV Player misplays they will do "something". Now, you state that there are Cruisers and DDs that kill CVs. True there are some. Also hermaphrodites see birth. Are they the norm? Since when the exception to the rule define the standard? Yes, we have bad CV players that manage to get killed by a DD or a Cruiser. That does not mean that Cruisers or DDs are the counterplay to CVs. They are simply the exceptions. In brief, as per my observations (as a DD main) and as per the statements of the proven good CV players, AA is useless and there is no real counter against a CV except if the CV player is a bad player. Final word, when players that have proven their quality in game by wining over their opponents say something technical about the game, it is to be taken seriously. When big mouths boast omniscient status I will just pass.

Yup

Many things, and you should know better than encouraging @Count_Knersis to jump to high tiers with only a couple of hundred battles under his belt. Dear @Count_Knersis take your time and don't rush the tiers. You will not learn to play the game in high tiers. I n high tiers you will apply what you have learnt in lower tiers. In high tiers a missplay will be punished at once and you will not even have the time to contemplate. Take it easy and high tiers will come naturally. A long journey is composed by many little steps. Take them one at a time. Regards

Welcome to the Forums. 1. You will learn by playing T4, T5 and T6. 2. Don't rush up the tiers. This is the best way to fail. 3. Don't be afraid to ask in the forums. 4. Post replays. You will get feedback. Step No. 1: Learn how not to present your ship as a juicy target. This involves positioning and angleing. Every time you get blapped try to figure why you got blapped. Usually you will find out that you was at the wrong place and showing your broadsides to the bad guys. Step No. 2: Learn how to aim and chose your ammo. This takes a bit of time and experience but it will come. One day you will realize that it is automatic. Some general tips: Turn on the alt interface from the settings. Use a dynamic crosshair. The lil box down right called the minimap? its there for a reason. USE IT. Its your friend. Turn on in the minimap ship names and last known position. Activate range circles. It is not bad to make mistakes. It is part of the learning process. What is bad is not to learn from your mistakes. Best of luck P.S. Ignore the salt, learn who's advice to value and THINK. This is supposed to be the thinking mans game.

Mathematically speaking you are wrong

(and Happy Holidays for the politically correct people) I wish a merry merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of us, players and WG staff and may all your wishes come true. Saltface

Nahhhh, I m not a white night. And I dislike SJW logic. I don’t need a safe space and I don’t care about cultural appropriation. Furthermore, I don’t really mind if someone tells somebody else that they are playing bad. But, this one was out of the blue. The dude didn’t even post on this thread and I m lazy to check if they have even posted in the forum. Like what? We hunt and find bad profiles and post them? Do you really want that? Look look daddy I found someone with a smaller epen than mine?

So you found one bad profile and you post it? Whats the purpose? To stat shame someone? Why? This person hasn't even posted in this thread. We know that there are many bad players. We know that many wrong things happen in the player base. But since when this stat shaming out of the blue is justified? Are you venting because you found bad teams in Ranked? You are not the only one. We all do. You didn't have the courtesy to black out the name. Grow up. P.S. Edit your post and blacken the name.

I played 10 battles, 6 victories. Reached rank 10. End of the road. Its a drama.

Horror Defined No words needed

At least WG got their directives right this time.

A total carry. Compliments to the T22 on my team. The two DDs did all the job. .

My best day till date on the game. (14 to 1 you have to add a Cossack game that doesn't show) Add to it the 200K Kamikaze game and you have the picture.

Uhmmm...they have no guns so any fast good gunboat can take you out. But ... they still are very very strong. If left unchecked they can wreck a whole team.

When the stars align... 200K in a T5. It was a T7 game with a T6 CV. Kraken, First Blood, High Caliber and 3 Dev Strikes 0 as in Zero received damage (110K potential damage)

Here is the answer to what you said ... turn broadside? Uhmm...since when this is a metric for quality? I thought broadside was equal to bending over for the soap. What everybody is telling you here is that there is no counter (AA or no AA) to CVs. You want to understand this? good. You don't want? good again.

can I watch? My thoughts. If the CV player is average you are dead the moment they decide you are. Do you want me to tell you what happens when the CV player is good? Exactly the same. Only faster.

These are a classic examples of a Faulty analogy. A faulty analogy is a type of Scope Shift, in that the arguer compares two things or two situations, but the two things or situations being compared aren't sufficiently alike. I will leave it here and the readers of the posts may judge for themselves. No you don't. The only thing you see is this: True. But, as I mentioned before, if I have an emergency I shall stand up and leave my desk and wont even close the game. Emergencies are emergencies. You are contradicting yourself. In one sentence you tell me that I m wrong when I claim that it legitimizes morally the action and in the next one you claim it is a legitimate way to leave or exit the programme. Not to mention we are not talking about the programme but the battle. Your argumentation is poor and it simply shows a contrarian nature. You did not convince me.

This is what you get when your marketing division is accustomed to extractive economics as described by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson

We can both claim whatever, without presenting any evidence. Who is right? No one. Usually, the one that makes a claim, an assertion or a statement has to present supporting evidence. Furthermore, I will tell you how I know it isn't true. Because you provided no proof, no evidence that it is true. It is like the Spaghetti Monster. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot—an argument that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them. Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by Bertrand Russell, to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. I shall also repeat the Hitchens's Razor dictum. Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. I think that I have founded my assertion that you made a wild statement since no proof was provided and I have rebutted your claim of me being lazy. In this respect I will tell you dear friend that I don't think any stat tool is the major reason that players dump battles. Players will throw their "toys out of the pram" and dump battles for a multitude of stupid reasons. In one of my games today, one player in a DD dumped us because there was a CV in battle and he wanted to do the spotting directive. He even announced it in game chat. My statement is that "leaving the battle prematurely, for whatever reason should not be encouraged or legitimized". I have used MM Monitor. It gives limited info. But, never made me bail out. Furthermore, most of the time, despite what the monitor presents, my team wins. What I have also noticed is that when the red team is presented to be very good I play more cautious and more concentrated. The solution is not to ban MM Monitor or whatever software presents "Legal" game info. The solution is to not give the tool to someone to bail out and start a new battle in 10 seconds. You can claim that any person can sail their ship YOLO and die fast. That is true. There is no way to control that. There is a way however to take away the option to leave a battle and start the next battle in 10 seconds. Remove the button. Also, we could put a minimum time between battles to discourage players from YOLO battle spamming. I could propose 7 minutes. That is up for debate. To return to the example I presented in the second paragraph, that player would not be able to leave and start again in an instant. He might have not left the battle in YOLO mode as it would be futile. Here you go. A not lazy answer.

Lets see if I understand correctly. You consider going pink because you left the battle prematurely a serious thing that would alienate players. Could be so or not. I don't care about snowflakes that have their feelings hurt because their nickname turned pink in a game. The discussion here is if the "leave battle" option should be available to players.

Lets have a look at this one, shall we? Legitimate reasons. Accepted. We all have been forced to leave a game for whatever real life reasons. What is the result? You turn pink. That's hardly a punishment. Pink is something like probation. And it only lasts two games. Not to mention that real life emergency wont happen every day or every ten minutes. On the same note, if your PC is malfunctioning or your network is performing badly, you shouldn't be playing. You are responsible for your hardware and software. In this respect there is no need to distinguish anything. What you are failing to understand is that in all normal cases a computer doesn't crash regularly and the internet doesn't drop every five minutes. As DFens said: If you have a RL situation going pink for two games is nothing. If you know you have to leave in ten minutes don't get in a 20 minute game. If you know your PC or Internet is acting funny don't get in a game. Fix the damn thing and then play. In my book it is irresponsible and shows disregard for others if you don't make sure that your system is properly working. All of the above are not related however to the deliberate action of leaving a game. Pressing a button is done on purpose.

Could you please tell us how do you know? I would like to see the data that supports this statement. However, for the sake of discussion, I will assume that the data (which surely you have in order to present such an assertion) supports your statement. (sarcastic tone) So, even if the reason for quitting the game is as you allege, the button should not be there, for not only it provides an easy way for someone to quit a battle with no valid reason whatsoever and it legitimizes morally the action. @NothingButTheRain, @GulvkluderGuld Furthermore, if I well remember, if you use [Alt]+[F4] or have a power or network failure and you restart the game, the game will put you back in the battle you was. Even if your ship was killed. Having this in mind, that button must definitely be removed. As it is the only way one has to "dump" a game and return to port and get the next ship at once.

As my PC hard disk decided to go kaboom, and I just managed to get online again on my backup PC, and as the 26 GB of the game installation will take some time, I ll torment you with my silly posts. 1st. You shouldn't be playing CV 2nd. If your CV was Russian it would be able to avoid collisions with other ships.

I will agree with your remark. Button or no button, the ones that want to leave will leave. The point I made is that the existence of the button legitimizes morally the action. Under this “viewport” it should be removed.