Saltface

This is correct. But.... This is not correct. It is not about the WR. As you will see in the spoiler below, no matter what, most of the times a good division will carry. It is about the game experience. When do you have more fun? Not with roflstomps. Win or lose, roflstomps do not make a good game. I can turn the tables around and say that WR hunters and stat padders want bad players so they can farm and get all those achievments etc. Players who want to have good games want a better player base. Or, let me put it this way...a better game experience. I don't want anyone to get rolled over because they rushed the tiers and sink all the time before the 3 minute mark. They will feel bad at the end (the majority at least) and quit the game. This is not healthy for the game. And this is what a good division will do:

I find it hardcore but correct. Some will be irritated because they died in a legit way. And they want to play not spectate. But the proposal has merit. That button is one of them. And easy to fix.

and the previous battle that they dumped along with other 11 teammates? We all have left intentionally or unintentionally a battle. Be it network problems, power, PC melt down or an emergency. That's fine. It happens. But just dumping the game is not something we would wish to reinforce as a behavior. Just MHO.

This is true. However, a button legitimizes the action in a way.

Ocean Best map. A check box with preferred map would be good. Map for any given battle would be the map the majority of players selected.

There is one thing called math. It makes absolute predictions. No need to try it we know what will happen because math predicts so. If WG implements your proposal then you will end up with everybody having 50% Its math. All the rest is horse excrement.

and the evidence is? Dear Friend, you cannot claim that something is a fraud because you feel like that. You need to present evidence. If you don't, we can simply ignore what you say unless we also have a tin foil hat on. Regards Saltface P.S. The Earth is flat.

@THE_JUDEAN_PEOPLES_FRONT https://images.app.goo.gl/15GM4bNYhcvoVoh17

CONCLUSION You want to play World Of Nothing can shoot at me

Oh my what a necro. And I consider myself lucky not to have found it earlier. I would be forum banned. Seems that evolution doesn’t affect us all equally

This issue was discussed July last and I did some research. it it a good read. It is not about DDs or Cruisers per se but it haves a rather good analysis. W

There is only one thing that infuriates me when done by a novice player. refusing to learn. all the rest are mistakes. Refusing to learn is hubris.

My pleasure mate. At least someone was shooting at what I was spotting. Be well. Until next time

Lets take a different approach. "I play for fun" is a valid statement. However, one may not have fun at the expense of others. I am sure that this is accepted by the proponents of both sides of the argument. Furthermore, as most probably we all play for fun and fun isn't defined the same way by all, we can't really use this argument, which is clearly subjective, to establish rules. Nor your fun trumps mine. Let's take a look now at the reward mechanics of the game. If one plays well (sinks red ships, deals damage, caps, spots etc.) one gets more XP and more credits. If one is on the team that wins the battle one receives additional rewards. If I am not wrong 50% plus. Having this in mind it is easy to understand that a player that wins battles will need less time to unlock (research) the next ship and will earn credits at faster rate in order to "buy" the ship and her modules. Also, a player that wins battles will have more credits to spend for signals, camos and premium consumables. Wining battles helps a player progress faster down the lines. On the other hand, a player that deliberately ignores the games objectives and refuses to play for victory condemns the team to defeat. Hence, takes away that extra 50% of rewards. Furthermore, there is a cascade effect reducing even more the reward one will get. Imagine now that the player that suffers the loss of this extra 50% of rewards (thus will progress slower down the lines) despite all their good efforts to learn how to play the game and play it to the best of their abilities are a paying customer. Not only they progress slower but they suffer a smaller return on their investment as well. Not to mention that one might lose credits in a defeat in high tiers. Let me ask you now who is taking away from whom? If one trolls the game and refuses to play for the objective of victory (primary objective) the result is that their teammates will receive significantly lower rewards. One or two vs eleven or ten players. Excuse me but this is inherently wrong. No one argues that you have to be a unicum to play the game. But I will argue fervently that one is expected to play the game properly and not ruin the game experience of others in order to have their sick notion of fun satisfied. I play for fun is a valid statement. Nevertheless, when it comes from game trolls it adds insult to injury. This is not elitism. It is realism. One closing statement. If all paying customers get frustrated because of the deteriorating game experience they will stop being paying customers. This means that ...we will not have this game anymore. Regards Saltface

Ouch. So many things wrong with this statement. Anyway, as I don't wish to get in a philosophical debate about Law, the process of making Law, if Law is regulative, punitive or reformative etc etc I ll state the following: Legislation is one of the most important instruments of government in organising society and protecting citizens. It determines among others the rights and responsibilities of individuals and authorities to whom the legislation applies. On the other hand, a law has little or no value if there is neither discipline nor enforcement. And discipline and enforcement are achieved with punitive measures in all Law Systems. I have failed to find yet an example of Law that rewards the citizens that obey the Law. Law does not provide for positive reinforcement but provides for disciplinary actions and punitive actions. Most Laws are punitive in nature. Meaning in simple words that IF YOU BREAK THE LAW YOU GET PUNISHED. The Law does not provide a benefit if you obey the Law. You don't get anything for stopping at the red light. But you get a hefty fine if you burn it. You are not rewarded if you don't steal. But you go to jail if you disregard other peoples property. Get my drift? So now you may argue as much as you want that what @159Hunter stated is "fatuous and ridiculous" but I would bet that you cannot provide even one example where the Law provides a bonus for anyone following the Law.

Hello there, At this level you should not care about your stats. Well, it sounds strange but...you shouldn't. What you should care about is how good your game is. If you aim at fixing your game (forum colloquial GIT GUD) your stats will follow. Use your stats as a monitor to check yourself. e.g. X ships has average damage Y%. What is your average damage on that ship? Lower? Hmmm...you are not dealing enough damage. Work on that aspect then. Here are some pointers (in random order) Best way to improve is to post your battle replays on the forum and ask for feedback. Trust me you will get a lot of it. And here comes the hard part. You have to filter out the garbage feedback. Pay attention to who is giving you advice. Watch replays of your battles. Try to identify your mistakes. Every time you say "oops I shouldn't have done that" or "oh my I should have done so and so" you just earned a Git Gud Token. Watch replays posted by forumites. Read the feedback they got. DON'T RUSH THE TIERS SPEND TIME TO LEARN THE GAME MECHANICS Play all classes. A good player is not the one that aims well (we all learn how to aim eventually) is the one that makes the correct tactical decisions in the game. And as a last piece of advice don't sniff glue or eat crayons. THINK Regards Saltface

You obviously failed to read the thread. I will draw your attention to my posts #34 and #71. I have no further comments.

Check. Like so many things we as parents do not want to expose our children to. However, we can't isolate them from the world they live in. What we can do however is teach them how to face this world, educate them, urge them to use critical thinking and do our best to "arm" them with the necessary skills and knowledge to be successful in life. Check again. However, this is a practice that is common to all "money making" organizations. Their purpose is to maximize profit. And they will do so at any cost and they will always be on that thin line between legal and illegal. Consequently, our children will have to face this situation sooner or later. In this respect no form of paternalistic management of this issue will help. On the contrary, teaching and educating a child, introducing critical thinking, explaining and constantly monitoring as parents our children's behavior will achieve a lot more. Yes my friend. Education (not training) and personal responsibility are the most powerful tools we have to help us go through life. Regards Saltface

No mate. It s not semantics. The way you say something matters sometimes. Anyway. Be well Saltface

Oh come on now mate. I agree that most probably you wanted to emphasize your disagreement but if you call someones proposal stupid...you aren't polite are you? You can be caustic and accusative but it takes a bit of eloquence to do that and remain polite. What if you phrased it "patently wrong" instead of "imbecilic"? Think about it.

In order to disagree with me you need to have made an argument first. I took the time to read the thread again. No argument related to the subject from your side. Just a direct attack to the OP. Go back and edit this one. This is a suggestion (or instruction take it as you wish) that you might want to follow. If you don't know what you wrote check the urban dictionary. Oh, by the way, if you want to insult someone try spelling your insults correctly. Sorry but this doesn't make sense. Second sentence contradicts the first one. I would suggest you rewrite it so we can understand what you want to say. Most probably you want to replace "will" with "would" and "when" with "if". Also the notion that one's statistics would benefit from game simplicity is rather absurd. Why? Because for every victory there is one and only one defeat. So, simpler or not, bad players would lose and good players would win. Unless, and this is just a thought, what you really want to say is that if the game was simpler, given enough time more people would learn how to play it better. This way they could take their turn preying on inexperienced players and ameliorate their stats. How can I profit from the game? Please do tell. I 'll cut you in for 20%. Nobody suggested that inexperienced players should be penalized. You are creating a strawman. Battle spamming is ruining the game experience. This is what we are discussing here. How to discourage players from battle spamming. This statement is most probably untrue. If my memory serves me well you said that the opinion expressed by the OP was "imbecilic". Opinions and points of view are not censored on this forum. However, insults are. Thank you for your attention gentlemen Regards Saltface

Point No. 1 - The poll should be How do you rate cyclones? 1. Cool 2. Indifferent 3. Bad Point No. 2 - I like them despite the fact that I am a DD main (My gameplay is highly influenced) - Full disclosure - I also like the Ocean Map.

@HMS_Kilinowski Twice in the same thread you taught by example. Not to mention that your posts are a pleasure to read. For what its worth thank you. Two minor objections. The first one is a bit philosophical in nature. I get a bad feeling when I am told that something is done for my benefit. Without any kind of exaggeration I perceive it as the first step of that dreadful voyage towards book burning. (a rather graphic example but I guess it saves us both from me writing a long essay about the evils of totalitarianism) The second one is more realistic. We cannot relegate a player to lower tiers as they are entitled to buy any premium ship they want and play it as they wish. No one, especially the company that makes money out of selling the premium ships would ever dare tell a paying customer that they can buy any ship they want but they can't play it. On the other hand we might be able to discourage a bad behavior by limiting the positive result one might be expecting if they resort in said bad behavior. My train of logic: 1. Why would one spam battles? To achieve a high battle count per unit of time. 2. Are all players that die early engaged in battle spamming? No. 3. Can we identify battle spammers from game logs? Yes we can (to a high degree of certainty). OK then Once the system has identified that a player is spamming battles said player will not be able to enter the next battle before the 12 minute mark. Furthermore, no credits or XP are earned in any further battle in which said player is eliminated before the 4 minute mark. (or reduced by 50%) This way you avoid the problems I mentioned above and you "negatively reinforce" bad behavior by removing the expected gain. Thanking you once again Regards Saltface

Oh I 'm having fun. The same person that urges one and all to be more polite and constructive only trolls the thread with voodoo dolls and the one with numbers for a name but has his numbers hidden abstains from counterarguments and constructive criticism. The road to success ... my posterior. @DFens_666 has put forward an idea. Is it correct or wrong? I don't know. But it has been presented and put up for debate. The OP clearly stated what problem he is trying to address and by what means. Maybe what he proposed is wrong, maybe correct. The only way to find out is to openly debate, present arguments for the proposal and counterarguments against the proposal. Critical and constructive method to evaluate any idea. Some of us have engaged in an open discussion and have presented valid arguments and counter arguments...some of us simply made a personal attack. Most probably they feel big and strong in this way. How sad. The funny part is that those among us that trolled the thread or attacked the OP and openly rejected the proposal did not take the time to explain why. Exclamation of anathemas and end of story. Grow up. Please be informed that Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The cheapest way to argue and the best way to derail a discussion. Congratulations. So my suggestion is that either you tell us why you disagree, what are the negative sides according to your point of view, present alternative solutions and be constructive in your criticism or put a sock in it because I m really tired with this kinder-garden behavior.

Here we go again. Words have more value than meaning. I will use the word "negative reinforcement" instead of "punishment". Question: Do you like players that YOLO in (do some damage) and die fast, click "exit battle", get the next ship in port, click "battle", rinse, repeat, amass XP and credits, complete the directives and contribute nothing to the gaming experience of everybody else? I guess not. How do we "negatively reinforce" this behavior? You don't like the time threshold. OK. It's up for debate. We can discuss it. But, falling (and deriding) upon the OP for proposing is wrong. Come on guys. A modicum of civility is necessary if we are to have a proper debate. So, a time threshold could be put in place. As well as a minimum time between battles. You don't die fast and get in the next battle just like that. We can also monitor the activity during the game. Being idle could remove XP and credits. I can get in a DD, sail happily around doing nothing but I m idle (game wise). You need to "negatively reinforce" my bad practice. While writing this post I read @HMS_Kilinowski 's post. He disagreed but he was civil, presented good points and was constructive. Let's try this approach. Who knows? It might work. Regards Saltface