Double punishment playing Dm. Donskoi

[Tungstonid]

23 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

If you turn while being spotted, you accept the risk of being deleted. like someone already said: there isnt much difference between an AFK and a bot who manages to get devastated at the begginning without doing anything.

Before you misrepresent what I said: There is no difference in regard to further (in case of the deleted player: post-death) contribution to this very battle. However, as @loppantorkel states, having a potentially useful player who at least tries is better more often than having someone who is AFK from the start.

[Daxeno]

Thread cleaned. Please avoid off-topic conflicts. Thank you.

 

Daxeno

[ghostbuster_]

5 hours ago, loppantorkel said:

Well there is. I'd rather have a player risk being deleted than a borderhumper. You have to take risks. I deleted a Hipper with a 6 citadel salvo at the start of a game a week ago. He wasn't spotted for long and he just had superbad RNG. Nothing more to it.

Again: there isnt much difference between those 2. Ofc there is difference. The guy, who gets devastated at the beginning without doing anything, makes at least enemy ships waste their first salvo for him (and that gives away their position). Did you shoot him in smoke? He was probably spotted you shot him and then he got unspotted. So he made a mistakr and you punished him.

[Darth_Glorious]

Turning when spotted is tricky, do only a half turn to bait shot than full turn when they are reloading.

[BeauNidl3]

1 hour ago, Darth_Glorious said:

Turning when spotted is tricky, do only a half turn to bait shot than full turn when they are reloading.

 

With a no concealment build (no upgrade module, camo or Concealment) getting un-spotted in the Donskoi would need you to be on practically the next map!

[loppantorkel]

2 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Again: there isnt much difference between those 2. Ofc there is difference. The guy, who gets devastated at the beginning without doing anything, makes at least enemy ships waste their first salvo for him (and that gives away their position). Did you shoot him in smoke? He was probably spotted you shot him and then he got unspotted. So he made a mistakr and you punished him.

No smoke. He made a left turn exiting their spawn. We all make mistakes. He picked a cruiser.

[AnotherDuck]

9 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

RNG can get you citadelled yes but it cant get you devatated. To devastate a CA you need multiple citadel hits. And to hit multiple citadels on a CA, you need to aim properly.

You just need luck to go in that direction once. Skill optional.

 

9 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

If you try to bow tank with a donskoi, its your fault indeed. You can not bow tank in it. You have to dodge shells. You have to use terrain to your advantage. And yes, if you try to bow tank in donskoi, you are a horrible player.

No one said anything about trying to bow tank. That's just how he ended up taking the hits.

 

9 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

If you turn while being spotted, you accept the risk of being deleted. like someone already said: there isnt much difference between an AFK and a bot who manages to get devastated at the begginning without doing anything.

So if you don't turn, you try to bow-tank, you risk getting deleted. If you show broadside, you risk getting deleted. Dodging? Well, the player we're discussing used the increased rudder shift instead of concealment, which is explicitly for making dodging easier. We're also talking about the least agile cruiser in the game. As in, he's doing exactly what you say he should. In conclusion, following your advice makes someone a horrible player, in your own words. Good we got that cleared out.

[Yogibjoern]

Point of thread is not how I played or misplayed. Point is I got a warning for being inactive/afk even I was not. My question is, is this working as intended or not??? Everything else has no relevance and is speculation at best. And only WG can answer this!

[BeauNidl3]

2 minutes ago, Yogibjoern said:

Point of thread is not how I played or misplayed. Point is I got a warning for being inactive/afk even I was not. My question is, is this working as intended or not??? Everything else has no relevance and is speculation at best. And only WG can answer this!

 

So why make the thread? If you only want WG to respond then put in a ticket or PM to the WG staff.

 

As many have pointed out endlessly your choices and misplay (which ARE relevant even though you prefer to ignore that) led to the system believing you were AFK because you contributed nothing and didn't even sail far enough to register as being there in the game.

[ghostbuster_]

42 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

You just need luck to go in that direction once. Skill optional.

 

No one said anything about trying to bow tank. That's just how he ended up taking the hits.

 

So if you don't turn, you try to bow-tank, you risk getting deleted. If you show broadside, you risk getting deleted. Dodging? Well, the player we're discussing used the increased rudder shift instead of concealment, which is explicitly for making dodging easier. We're also talking about the least agile cruiser in the game. As in, he's doing exactly what you say he should. In conclusion, following your advice makes someone a horrible player, in your own words. Good we got that cleared out.

like always you tried to look smart but yeah... well do you want me to teach you how to play donskoi or what? dodging is the general rule/tactic for CAs. you have to try to dodge in every ca. in donskoi example, it turns like a truck yeah, so you have to keep your distance if you cant use terrain to your advantage to get closer. and from the distance you can dodge shells. besides you can juke enemies even in mid ranges. 

 

so should he follow your advice and join the "remove radar" horde?

[EdiJo]

On 6.05.2018 at 7:47 AM, mariouus said:

You were talking about "team-friendly-ness" and long range HE-spamming. Being "Teamfriendly" in a radar cruiser, means actively contesting caps and supportin DDs. Yes sometimes it does backfire. But now talking about recent performance, your 120k loss was more teamfriendly than my 11k? Now considering that you have impressive 70% survivability (much higer than me) and 27% hit-rate (somewhat lower than mine) will suggest that, while using consilement bulid, you are actually farther away from enemy.

Yes, I admit I am scared remote HE spammer in Soviet cruisers. I quite frequently play Shchors, for example.

Add to that my warm feelings towards Conqueror and you have the image 

But you can't deny that it is much much more useful to have better concealment to get into good radar position. Having value like OP will just make you a juicy target long before you are even close. There are some boats where I tried double rudder shift, but Donskoi is too clumsy and too fragile even with max boost. 

Other thing is that he has quite good torps, so this is another reason to be as sneaky as possible. 

 

Quote

 

Analysis? Statistically speaking he is slightly better cruiser player than I am. And has about 1/3 more cruiser battles.

 

He uses consilement build (apparently). What has given him 46% winrate, because goal of the game is not do survive, but do win. He s consilement build "works" 46% of the battles. I use non consilement build, and have 59% winrate. So non-consilement build "works" 59% of the time (while having low overall survivability). So saying that non-consilement build is not working (or like some other player sayed "bizzare and un-workable) is wrong. It does work, yes most likely you are not going do have as long aand healthy life in a battle as consilement-build user, but it is fun and it does work.

You are extrapolating too far from a single number. My win rate has some very bad periods, and has better times too. For example it seems correlated with time of day I mostly play. Anyway, in random games (especially recently) your individual performance is not correlated with winning or losing, at least in a sample smaller than ~50 games. This my "120k loss" was actually relatively team-friendly... (no, I wont give you the replay, there was too much cursing AFAIR )

 

What we are talking about here is that: yes, bad-concealment build is perfectly fine, BUT you have to be able to play it. If you consistently and continuously are failing, yet you keep trying, this is exactly a deliberate repeated suiciding. Not optimal play, gently speaking. So let me repeat my example: I have nothing against Flambass going middle, but I have lots against my average team-Steves doing exactly the same thing in the same ship. 

 

On 6.05.2018 at 10:10 AM, loppantorkel said:

RNG does play a role here though. Even if you disregard detonations, you're still at risk for multiple citadel hits, if you're unlucky. Doesn't happen often, but given the topic about warnings and punishments, it's something to consider and maybe tweak if there's a chance you're punished multiple times just for bad RNG.

One citadel is already bad RNG. Multiple citadels (devastating strike) is already multiple bad RNG. Multiple devastating strikes is multiple multiple bad RNG. 

Happens, but it is quite rare - and I would accept that as a price for eliminating real (not just "unlucky") suiciders. Even if it can sometimes happen to me (yes!) 

On 6.05.2018 at 11:04 AM, AnotherDuck said:

You keep saying "frequent", but two games is not frequent by any stretch of the imagination.

I would say 2 "inactive" dev-strikes in consecutive 4 games is frequent. I didn't digest actual rules enough to say how it works actually, though.

Quote

And we're not talking about sailing broadside here. We're talking about bow penetrations. This is apparently "suiciding". If you say exposing yourself to those is bad play that should be punished, then exposing yourself to any shots at all throughout the entire game is bad play. Which is just as ridiculous as it sounds. It's exactly the kind of elitist bullcrap I'm talking about. Punish players the moment they don't reach your standard of gameplay, whether by luck or skill.

 

So if you get deleted from the front, you're automatically a bad player? Right. If there's something wrong with someone, I don't think it's about him.

As above. You just don't tank in Donskoi, totally different boat from Moskva. Well, maybe you somehow can do it (I am not all-knowing unicum) - but if you keep doing that and keep failing, after multiple multiple bad RNG you will get your deserved pinkness. Not the end of the world, but just a flag that you're doing it wrong and it should change.

19 hours ago, Yogibjoern said:

Point of thread is not how I played or misplayed. Point is I got a warning for being inactive/afk even I was not. My question is, is this working as intended or not??? Everything else has no relevance and is speculation at best. And only WG can answer this!

It was a warning that you were zero-effective in a few battles. Had same impact on a game as you would not control the ship at all - so all depends on how frequency thresholds are set. 

[mariouus]

11 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

So if you don't turn, you try to bow-tank, you risk getting deleted. If you show broadside, you risk getting deleted. Dodging? Well, the player we're discussing used the increased rudder shift instead of concealment, which is explicitly for making dodging easier. We're also talking about the least agile cruiser in the game. As in, he's doing exactly what you say he should. In conclusion, following your advice makes someone a horrible player, in your own words. Good we got that cleared out.

Thing is,  person has do make a build that fits his/her playstyle. If one gets devastated alot in one build, then it is obvious that it is not working out. And probably should change either build or playstyle.

[AnotherDuck]

20 hours ago, mariouus said:

Thing is,  person has do make a build that fits his/her playstyle. If one gets devastated alot in one build, then it is obvious that it is not working out. And probably should change either build or playstyle.

Again, two is not "alot [sic]".

[Jethro_Grey]

If a player reaches TIX and still has no concealment module and a concealment specced captain, he shouldn‘t really complain about being focused and deleted, or subsequently punished for being ‚afk‘. 

 

I wonder tho, is my phone bonkers or does OPs profile shows no Donskoi at all?

[Excavatus]

1 hour ago, Jethro_Grey said:

If a player reaches TIX and still has no concealment module and a concealment specced captain, he shouldn‘t really complain about being focused and deleted, or subsequently punished for being ‚afk‘. 

 

I wonder tho, is my phone bonkers or does OPs profile shows no Donskoi at all?

You are right and your phone is ok,

OP don't have Donskoi, Actually he doesn't have any RU silver cruisers at all!

 

[AnotherDuck]

2 hours ago, Jethro_Grey said:

If a player reaches TIX and still has no concealment module and a concealment specced captain, he shouldn‘t really complain about being focused and deleted, or subsequently punished for being ‚afk‘.

Sorry, I missed that. Where did he say he was focused down? Could you point me to that post?

 

Concealment doesn't matter for being focused. The moment you're spotted, you're focused. Period. If anything, being spotted at a longer range means you're less focused than if you're spotted at shorter range.

[Capra76]

Seems that WG are making a few changes to remove (or reduce) this issue: https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/updates/update-074/

 

As part of our efforts to eliminate cases of the AFK/Inactive status being erroneously assigned to players in Tier IX and X battles, we reduced the required minimum distance (in-game kilometres) to be covered in battle by 2 times.

[MrConway]

On 5/5/2018 at 3:46 AM, Yogibjoern said:

Just want a reaction/comment from WG is this working as intended or is it a flaw??

 

@Tuccy @MrConway @Sub_Octavian

 

Its obviously not working as intended, but hard for an automatic system to distinguish.

 

Please send in a report to customer support with replays from both games so we can take a closer look.

 

Ultimately I am not however sure if we will be able to distinguish an accidental deletion from an intentional suicide rush. But providing this doesn't happen several games in a row (it shouldn't) you will not receive the punishment, but only the warning.