Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
DFens_666

High XP earner plays for the team/win? NO!

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SHAFT]
Players
10,967 posts
9,438 battles

This is for everyone who thinks

"if you get good XP, you did something right"

No, this shows, how you can absolutely LOSE the game, be 2nd in XP for SHOOTING HE and camping behind your CV as a TOPTIER BATTLESH(EE)IP

image.thumb.png.a05f3bfb69a9af2818e890094560753b.png

 

Its just about the movement of the Izumo (thus i tried to increase the size of the minimap as much as possible)

Izumo left corner, basicly together with the KGV. KGV also doesnt do anything, gets blapped from full health in the end because broadside best side. Izumo gets 45k damage gifted against the Soyuz for mostly ramming.

 

Anyone who still thinks "Top 3 XP earner are good players" -> watch the video and think again.

 

Spoiler

Dont mind me flaming in Chat :Smile_hiding: But at some point, it has to come out...

 

  • Cool 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
14,410 posts
20,467 battles

I dunno, this is what all those CV apologists say you're supposed to do against aircraft right? Stay in the back, be useless and let someone else take the strike?

In this regard I would rate this a 10/10 perfect play.

:Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,991 posts
17,341 battles

Clearly lost cause you had lousy div m8s. It is known that good tripple div is cheating and wins games.:fish_book:

 

Oh and, in before, this is one example. When I end up there, I did play to win. And btw, stop looking at how I play. WG says you are not allowed to multitask.

 

/end

 

Seriously, I feel your pain, but I've given up trying to help or play the game properly, just not worth the effort.

 

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
10,967 posts
9,438 battles
11 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Clearly lost cause you had lousy div m8s. It is known that good tripple div is cheating and wins games.:fish_book:

 

Yeah, should also tag those guy who claim "YoU OnLy HaVe LuCkY MM".

The only player who might have been somewhat decent was the Sinop.

 

And it kinda shows the issue with matching CLs against BCs. Enemies only had Alaska, we had 2 Neptunes. Neptunes played "shoot my citadel here for instagib" and you see how tough it is to kill an Alaska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

And it kinda shows the issue with matching CLs against CBs. Enemies only had Alaska, we had 2 Neptunes. Neptunes played "shoot my citadel here for instagib" and you see how tough it is to kill an Alaska.

I'd disagree. The main issue with that isn't that supercruisers are too strong, Alaska is. And Alaska vs Neptune basically hard-counters that Nep in a way, you could as well ask how the hell is Lion supposed to coexist with Musashi? Eats cits from any angle. You can't even bait reliably, because the cit deck is 32 mm. But Neptune getting overmatched isn't even restricted to supercruisers, Henri, Cheshire, Drake and Goliath would be able to do that too. None of those are supercruisers. If we take same-tier Drake, if you don't broadside, the ship can be actually pretty hard to kill too and certainly is for anything that doesn't overmatch 25 mm. And sure, unlike the Alaska, Drake can't broadside and survive. But then, neither can half the supercruisers, given a broadsiding Azuma, Yoshino or Stalingrad are pretty much free damage for anything with ~180-210 mm of pen. Given the armour strength, target size and heal, I'd consider Drake straight up tankier than Azuma.

 

If CL vs supercruiser at T9 seems horrid, I'd say it's because there's some of the tankiest supercruisers at the tier, while pretty much every T9 CL is among the crappiest ships in their line, being HMS All Citadel-No Armour, USS My guns are Cleveland, my firing angles are GK and Soviet Navy ship 404 DPM not found. Most of them don't even look good when compared to regular heavy cruisers. Meanwhile at T10, light cruisers look a good bit better with ships like Nevsky or Smolensk around and while Minotaur is still easily devastated and Worcester has seen better days, their dpm still is a very serious matter.

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,815 posts
11,183 battles
9 hours ago, HaachamaShipping said:

I'd disagree. The main issue with that isn't that supercruisers are too strong, Alaska is. And Alaska vs Neptune basically hard-counters that Nep in a way, you could as well ask how the hell is Lion supposed to coexist with Musashi? Eats cits from any angle. You can't even bait reliably, because the cit deck is 32 mm. But Neptune getting overmatched isn't even restricted to supercruisers, Henri, Cheshire, Drake and Goliath would be able to do that too. None of those are supercruisers. If we take same-tier Drake, if you don't broadside, the ship can be actually pretty hard to kill too and certainly is for anything that doesn't overmatch 25 mm. And sure, unlike the Alaska, Drake can't broadside and survive. But then, neither can half the supercruisers, given a broadsiding Azuma, Yoshino or Stalingrad are pretty much free damage for anything with ~180-210 mm of pen. Given the armour strength, target size and heal, I'd consider Drake straight up tankier than Azuma.

 

If CL vs supercruiser at T9 seems horrid, I'd say it's because there's some of the tankiest supercruisers at the tier, while pretty much every T9 CL is among the crappiest ships in their line, being HMS All Citadel-No Armour, USS My guns are Cleveland, my firing angles are GK and Soviet Navy ship 404 DPM not found. Most of them don't even look good when compared to regular heavy cruisers. Meanwhile at T10, light cruisers look a good bit better with ships like Nevsky or Smolensk around and while Minotaur is still easily devastated and Worcester has seen better days, their dpm still is a very serious matter.

 

I tried to bring this point across right after Alaska was released (and specifically mentioned Neptune back then) but WG didnt want to listen. Can still find that topic somewhere back in the forum with replys from WG officals.

Neptune used to be a really strong T9 cruiser, one of my favourites. But yes, with Alaska beeing an option, why would you play Neptune (or Seattle for that matter)?

The more I think about it, the more I realize, that T9 and T10 non-silver ships are a huge problem and should never exist, for several reasons.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
10,967 posts
9,438 battles
9 hours ago, HaachamaShipping said:

I'd disagree. The main issue with that isn't that supercruisers are too strong, Alaska is. And Alaska vs Neptune basically hard-counters that Nep in a way, you could as well ask how the hell is Lion supposed to coexist with Musashi? Eats cits from any angle. You can't even bait reliably, because the cit deck is 32 mm. But Neptune getting overmatched isn't even restricted to supercruisers, Henri, Cheshire, Drake and Goliath would be able to do that too. None of those are supercruisers. If we take same-tier Drake, if you don't broadside, the ship can be actually pretty hard to kill too and certainly is for anything that doesn't overmatch 25 mm. And sure, unlike the Alaska, Drake can't broadside and survive. But then, neither can half the supercruisers, given a broadsiding Azuma, Yoshino or Stalingrad are pretty much free damage for anything with ~180-210 mm of pen. Given the armour strength, target size and heal, I'd consider Drake straight up tankier than Azuma. 

  

If CL vs supercruiser at T9 seems horrid, I'd say it's because there's some of the tankiest supercruisers at the tier, while pretty much every T9 CL is among the crappiest ships in their line, being HMS All Citadel-No Armour, USS My guns are Cleveland, my firing angles are GK and Soviet Navy ship 404 DPM not found. Most of them don't even look good when compared to regular heavy cruisers. Meanwhile at T10, light cruisers look a good bit better with ships like Nevsky or Smolensk around and while Minotaur is still easily devastated and Worcester has seen better days, their dpm still is a very serious matter.

 

Overall, the BCs are much tankier than normal Cruisers, maybe Nevsky is the only exception for CLs, and Azuma/Yoshino are a bit less tanky than the others.

Saying Stalingrad is not tanky because it can get deleted broadside doesnt make for a good arguement.

 

That some ships like Henri can overmatch certain CLs is a seperate issue, and i would welcome it if WG would buff their plating to 19mm. Getting overmatched by MBRB Henri is just silly... Atleast the RN CAs have less DPM than a Stalingrad f.e.

 

I think WG could implement a BC class, atleast with a softcap of 1 difference (so 1vs2 BC is ok, but 0vs2 is not). Could remove/lower that cap with a 1 minute waiting time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BS4]
Players
1,371 posts
7,567 battles
10 hours ago, HaachamaShipping said:

 

 while pretty much every T9 CL is among the crappiest ships in their line, being HMS All Citadel-No Armour, USS My guns are Cleveland, my firing angles are GK and Soviet Navy ship 404 DPM not found. Most of them don't even look good when compared to regular heavy cruisers. 

Absolutely agree and was just thinking about this yesterday in that why are most of if not all T9 ships seem to be a bit of a "odd one out" in any nations tech tree. They never seem to function as well as their previous ship for their tier. I dont know if its such a tight/narrow performance window between 8-10 that there isn't much to work with in respect of performance parameters. But having been playing the Brindisi recently ive found that its the odd one out again and has a few questionable performance peramiters for its tier. I cant help thinking devs just get to designing tier 9's knowing its going to be tricky and just cant be arsed with the fine tuning necessary and are like "ahhh just leave it like that see what happens, come back if I need to....Right then...(rubbing hands together) lets crack on with these tier X's!!":cap_money:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
7 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

I tried to bring this point across right after Alaska was released (and specifically mentioned Neptune back then) but WG didnt want to listen. Can still find that topic somewhere back in the forum with replys from WG officals.

Neptune used to be a really strong T9 cruiser, one of my favourites. But yes, with Alaska beeing an option, why would you play Neptune (or Seattle for that matter)?

The more I think about it, the more I realize, that T9 and T10 non-silver ships are a huge problem and should never exist, for several reasons.

That's an issue though mostly based on how poor T9 CLs are compared to Alaska, not that CL in general is a concept that is underpowered and supercruisers in general being OP.

6 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Overall, the BCs are much tankier than normal Cruisers, maybe Nevsky is the only exception for CLs, and Azuma/Yoshino are a bit less tanky than the others.

For CLs, the exceptions would be Nevsky and Mainz, but most CLs get good dpm in exchange. As to supercruisers being tankier than normal cruisers... depends.

6 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Saying Stalingrad is not tanky because it can get deleted broadside doesnt make for a good arguement.

Point isn't Stalingrad not being tanky. It's that many supercruisers like the Stalingrad or Yoshino are tanky only while angle, unlike Alaska and PR. And if you consider the punishment ships can take while properly angled, ships like Petropavlovsk, Goliath and Moskva aren't exactly easy to kill either, making the supercruiser's improved tankiness a bit less of a "broken" issue than it might appear as.

6 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

That some ships like Henri can overmatch certain CLs is a seperate issue, and i would welcome it if WG would buff their plating to 19mm. Getting overmatched by MBRB Henri is just silly... Atleast the RN CAs have less DPM than a Stalingrad f.e.

At that point you could also just buff it to the normal 25 mm and then they'd not get wrecked by supercruisers either. And most 25+ mm cruisers have a pretty decent chance against supercruisers, just because of the difference in effective dpm and burn time.

5 hours ago, SeaWolf7 said:

Absolutely agree and was just thinking about this yesterday in that why are most of if not all T9 ships seem to be a bit of a "odd one out" in any nations tech tree. They never seem to function as well as their previous ship for their tier. I dont know if its such a tight/narrow performance window between 8-10 that there isn't much to work with in respect of performance parameters. But having been playing the Brindisi recently ive found that its the odd one out again and has a few questionable performance peramiters for its tier. I cant help thinking devs just get to designing tier 9's knowing its going to be tricky and just cant be arsed with the fine tuning necessary and are like "ahhh just leave it like that see what happens, come back if I need to....Right then...(rubbing hands together) lets crack on with these tier X's!!":cap_money:

There exist enough "good" T9s though. Brindisi isn't even bad, it's arguably a bigger upgrade over the Amalfi than Amalfi was over Zara. Drake is tier for tier often viewed as stronger than Goliath. Buffalo is also a pretty strong ship overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
641 posts
14,664 battles

 

19 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

This is for everyone who thinks

"if you get good XP, you did something right"

No, this shows, how you can absolutely LOSE the game, be 2nd in XP for SHOOTING HE and camping behind your CV as a TOPTIER BATTLESH(EE)IP

image.thumb.png.a05f3bfb69a9af2818e890094560753b.png

 

Its just about the movement of the Izumo (thus i tried to increase the size of the minimap as much as possible)

Izumo left corner, basicly together with the KGV. KGV also doesnt do anything, gets blapped from full health in the end because broadside best side. Izumo gets 45k damage gifted against the Soyuz for mostly ramming.

 

Anyone who still thinks "Top 3 XP earner are good players" -> watch the video and think again.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Dont mind me flaming in Chat :Smile_hiding: But at some point, it has to come out...

 

1. Great effort on your part.

2. Yes WG needs to do something about base xp generation.

3. Jesus that Izumo play looked more like a cruiser running for his life after taking a broadside. No seriously hiding behind a cv?

4. As for your Chat call outs. It was deserved but seriously you are gonna burn out and stroke out at this rate. 

 

People are going to be stupid. Sadly in this game there is very little to no punishment for poor play, but a metric ton for speaking your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
10,967 posts
9,438 battles
34 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

4. As for your Chat call outs. It was deserved but seriously you are gonna burn out and stroke out at this rate. 

 

After couple of those games, at some point you gotta let it go :fish_boom:

I wanted to go ham even before it, but then i went back and tried to get them to help me. The only reaction from the KGV was "...", whatever thats supposed to me. Apparently "yes, i die in 1 sec" which he then went to prove by dying flat broadside.

Those people should play Coop only, there is no difference. They dont understand anything, they just play cruiseship simulator. I bet if WG secretly re-route them into Coop games, they wouldnt realize it. Maybe they would be happy by winning >90% all of a sudden :cap_haloween:

 

34 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

People are going to be stupid. Sadly in this game there is very little to no punishment for poor play, but a metric ton for speaking your mind.

 

Yeah, i kinda expect a chatban. Alltho i didnt get reported, so maybe not. But lately WG has handed out more chatbans, longlasting ones. I know a few which are banned this entire month :cap_fainting: They cant even use their own clanchat lol...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
641 posts
14,664 battles
2 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

After couple of those games, at some point you gotta let it go :fish_boom:

I wanted to go ham even before it, but then i went back and tried to get them to help me. The only reaction from the KGV was "...", whatever thats supposed to me. Apparently "yes, i die in 1 sec" which he then went to prove by dying flat broadside.

Those people should play Coop only, there is no difference. They dont understand anything, they just play cruiseship simulator. I bet if WG secretly re-route them into Coop games, they wouldnt realize it. Maybe they would be happy by winning >90% all of a sudden :cap_haloween:

 

 

Yeah, i kinda expect a chatban. Alltho i didnt get reported, so maybe not. But lately WG has handed out more chatbans, longlasting ones. I know a few which are banned this entire month :cap_fainting: They cant even use their own clanchat lol...

Yeah I caught a 7 days one about 3 weeks ago, not gonna lie I earned the hell out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,786 posts
12,246 battles
On 11/13/2020 at 11:37 PM, DFens_666 said:

Anyone who still thinks "Top 3 XP earner are good players" -> watch the video and think again.

Being in top 3 doesn't guarantee that you performed well, no - but it heavily correlates.

 

That being said (and this is one of the major reasons why "top loser saves the star" ended up being such a disaster), your place in the team ladder is more indicative of performance if the game is a victory. It's not perfect, mind you, but pretty good - because a won match is one where the team managed to do SOMETHING, so getting a decent cut of that "something" means that you must've done "something right", as you said.

 

On a defeat, the correlation weakens. It is, of course, possible that people around the top really put up a great fight - but there's also the chance that what they put up was a LONG fight instead, sitting behind and using the team as meatshields and sniping only to end the battle with some extra nice hits on the enemies that no longer need to worry about the result and are just racing the clock to squeeze out the last couple XP points they still can before the victory screen gets in the way.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
6,105 posts
14,546 battles
14 hours ago, SeaWolf7 said:

I cant help thinking devs just get to designing tier 9's knowing its going to be tricky and just cant be arsed with the fine tuning necessary and are like "ahhh just leave it like that see what happens, come back if I need to....Right then...(rubbing hands together) lets crack on with these tier X's!!

I always assumed that a lot of the T9s were - to me - frankly pants because that's the tier where WG make the most money if players want to free xp to the next tier; it makes financial sense to 'encourage' people to open their wallets to clear a problem ship.

 

I prefer your explanation - there is less cynicism involved (it also accounts for the decent T9s that are running around out there)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
10,967 posts
9,438 battles
7 hours ago, eliastion said:

Being in top 3 doesn't guarantee that you performed well, no - but it heavily correlates.

 

There seem to be a growing number of people who think otherwise, thus i created this thread. Its mostly to have something to show the next time someone comes around "Best XP earners played for the win" or "best XP earners are good players".

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
3,470 posts
11,259 battles
On 11/13/2020 at 10:37 PM, DFens_666 said:

This is for everyone who thinks

"if you get good XP, you did something right"

No, this shows, how you can absolutely LOSE the game, be 2nd in XP for SHOOTING HE and camping behind your CV as a TOPTIER BATTLESH(EE)IP

image.thumb.png.a05f3bfb69a9af2818e890094560753b.png

 

Its just about the movement of the Izumo (thus i tried to increase the size of the minimap as much as possible)

Izumo left corner, basicly together with the KGV. KGV also doesnt do anything, gets blapped from full health in the end because broadside best side. Izumo gets 45k damage gifted against the Soyuz for mostly ramming.

 

Anyone who still thinks "Top 3 XP earner are good players" -> watch the video and think again.

 

  Hide contents

Dont mind me flaming in Chat :Smile_hiding: But at some point, it has to come out...

 

Wowwwww. (don't browse it) :Smile_Default:

 

Man, my eyes, and the minimap it's kind in the way. May i suggest...

I get it, you want to speed up things to people watch  and not get bored, but i think would be better if you slow down a bit and put the minimap a tad smaller, or you could do just the highlights .

 

I had games like yours, the last was Hot spot map left spawn bottom half of the map. while i was getting massacred by the reds, trying to hold the flank exactly as you ,  a NC behind me,  did nothing during the game, was blue lining, he was last ship standing and ended in second. (he only fired (HE) at the end 

Now, in co-op where every point counts  there's a difference between staying inside a cap, or around a cap and there's a difference in what you are doing.

I even suspect that, let's say between 2 ships heading for a cap at full speed and if one of them cuts speed for whatever , that factor alone will enter in the equation and that ship will win less points.

 

Possible reasons for what happened.

you spent most of the game kitting and in the end you stayed behind a island, trying to hold to your dear life. (nothing wrong with that, i would do exactly the same)

 

But you played defensively,  you went backwards at a certain point, (nothing wrong with that either) and you died trying to hold the flank, you failed

 

That Izumo out live you and was in the offensive at the end, did two kills (might even be kill steals, i don't know ) and his last kill was around 30 k with the ramming, a big chunk of the red ship HP  

 

I believe if you had survived that you would be ahead even in a defeat.

Here's an example.

I only kite the all freaking game i couldn't do anything else, but i survived and the fact i sunk bigger ships than mine helped a lot.

In the end it didn't help much either apart from the AR at that time.

 

Spoiler

bayerndef.thumb.jpg.24165f5ecc557df98ce1fca91f4209be.jpgbayerndefeat1.thumb.jpg.32543c3f829a6974900dd19f693e802e.jpg

1946009172_bayerndefeat2.thumb.jpg.a174098fb39465e65124d45818bdd1be.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
10,967 posts
9,438 battles
1 hour ago, Butterdoll said:

Possible reasons for what happened.

 

Well i did consider closing the distance towards the islands, but its >99% chance that it would have just caused an ever faster loss.

- Basicly the entire enemy team was going that way

- Alaska is a strong brawler which you can hardly citadel, he could have just tried to Ram me aswell. Mainz, Hipper and Gneisenau - all equiped with torps, all (almost) immune to being citadelled closerange.

- My 2 BBs made no attempt to help at all. When they always shoot from maxrange, you cant expect enough firepower to kill those ships before they Ram or torp me. Also they shot HE so... no chance for them to deliver crippling blows to ships showing broadside to them.

- Going towards the island could have resulted in me getting rushed from both sides.

 

Other ship compositions and more active BBs, yes there was a chance to take a stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-HUN-]
[-HUN-]
Players
1,396 posts
10,923 battles
11 hours ago, eliastion said:

Being in top 3 doesn't guarantee that you performed well, no - but it heavily correlates.

 

That being said (and this is one of the major reasons why "top loser saves the star" ended up being such a disaster), your place in the team ladder is more indicative of performance if the game is a victory. It's not perfect, mind you, but pretty good - because a won match is one where the team managed to do SOMETHING, so getting a decent cut of that "something" means that you must've done "something right", as you said.

 

On a defeat, the correlation weakens. It is, of course, possible that people around the top really put up a great fight - but there's also the chance that what they put up was a LONG fight instead, sitting behind and using the team as meatshields and sniping only to end the battle with some extra nice hits on the enemies that no longer need to worry about the result and are just racing the clock to squeeze out the last couple XP points they still can before the victory screen gets in the way.

Depends on what you call "good play" in a game that is based on teams...

 

It is like saying you won the war because you won all the battles but you still had to give up land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
3,470 posts
11,259 battles
1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Well i did consider closing the distance towards the islands, but its >99% chance that it would have just caused an ever faster loss.

- Basicly the entire enemy team was going that way

- Alaska is a strong brawler which you can hardly citadel, he could have just tried to Ram me aswell. Mainz, Hipper and Gneisenau - all equiped with torps, all (almost) immune to being citadelled closerange.

- My 2 BBs made no attempt to help at all. When they always shoot from maxrange, you cant expect enough firepower to kill those ships before they Ram or torp me. Also they shot HE so... no chance for them to deliver crippling blows to ships showing broadside to them.

- Going towards the island could have resulted in me getting rushed from both sides.

 

Other ship compositions and more active BBs, yes there was a chance to take a stand.

I was comment about the XP earnings.

 

I had to slow down the speed  of the video to make something out of it.

 

speaking from the cosy  in sight...

 

you simply got swamped by the reds and you stayed for a long time as the most exposed ship  of your flank, you were almost always under a crossfire until you reached that island.

you dealt a lot of damage but you took a lot of damage too. You needed a breather and you didn't get one.

IMO, you lost your game there, next island would be better.

And you certainly were under a lot of pressure, and it shows, in the end when you tried to use your back turret after you shoot the island, for Alaska, he only had to shoot HE to kill you at that point. You should had wait a bit more before you shoot and forget about the back turret.

Hipper and Gneisenau are hardly a threat at distance.

You lost that game when you tried to use the secondaries, i would use that same island for cover to pull some distance if that would make a difference i don't know . or

I think you lost the game there because you didn't take full advantage of that island, you took a lot of damage before the torps.

 

Either way you did a good job, In sight, things always look bad, but where is the in sight when you need it? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,815 posts
11,183 battles
1 minute ago, Butterdoll said:

you dealt a lot of damage but you took a lot of damage too. You needed a breather and you didn't get one.

 

He was out of heals. There was no more breather.

 

1 minute ago, Butterdoll said:

IMO, you lost your game there, next island would be better.

 

Absolutly not, concidering 2 other BBs were there. Izumo and KGV should have stopped there, eventhough they like a55 up until there, they could have still made up for it and turned it into an easy win. Last enemys where all in B in a pile. Massa stopped them from turning. Izumo and KGB WOULD have had their broadsides but chose to go cowardly behind the islands to the right - THATS whats cost the game.

 

2 hours ago, Butterdoll said:

That Izumo out live you and was in the offensive at the end, did two kills (might even be kill steals, i don't know ) and his last kill was around 30 k with the ramming, a big chunk of the red ship HP  

 

Jack s he was offensive. He even throws the game 100% by taking the ram cuz that dude gives a rata55 about winning games. He couldnt have known if the Kutuzov kills the Alaska - it was 1,5k left on the Alaska. A good Izumo in that situation (well wouldnt be in that situation in the first place but lets run with it) would have went for the drive by, take the kill WITHOUT dying to have a chance to win. Instea, he makes it a 100% loss. There was a path to victory with 30 sec on the clock. As I said: Kutuzov gets ONE more shot, the Alaska is dead, game is within 60 points, which means: the Izumo kills the enemy BB while not dying: win. But those rotten tomates do not understand anything about points and wins, thus they are 40%ers in the first place. No need to try and look for something decent in his actions: he was utter utter useless from 00:01 to 19:59 of the game. Not a single good thing he did.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
3,470 posts
11,259 battles
1 hour ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

He was out of heals. There was no more breather.

 

Quote

 

 

Absolutly not, concidering 2 other BBs were there. Izumo and KGV should have stopped there, eventhough they like a55 up until there, they could have still made up for it and turned it into an easy win. Last enemys where all in B in a pile. Massa stopped them from turning. Izumo and KGB WOULD have had their broadsides but chose to go cowardly behind the islands to the right - THATS whats cost the game.

According to @DFens_666 he wasn't feeling comfortable in that island he was afraid of being outflanked /rammed from both sides or either side, so, in that regard, the next island was better because it has a choke point in one of the sides.

And in the end he didn't pulled distance nor stayed close enough to the island, he stayed in between, in the open where the reds could shoot at him and he was too close to the reds between 9 and 11 kms.

to me, was when and where he lost his game i didn't say he threw the game or the game was lost because of him.

Quote

 

 

Jack s he was offensive. He even throws the game 100% by taking the ram cuz that dude gives a rata55 about winning games. He couldnt have known if the Kutuzov kills the Alaska - it was 1,5k left on the Alaska. A good Izumo in that situation (well wouldnt be in that situation in the first place but lets run with it) would have went for the drive by, take the kill WITHOUT dying to have a chance to win. Instea, he makes it a 100% loss. There was a path to victory with 30 sec on the clock. As I said: Kutuzov gets ONE more shot, the Alaska is dead, game is within 60 points, which means: the Izumo kills the enemy BB while not dying: win. But those rotten tomates do not understand anything about points and wins, thus they are 40%ers in the first place. No need to try and look for something decent in his actions: he was utter utter useless from 00:01 to 19:59 of the game. Not a single good thing he did.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

That Izumo just like that NC in hot spot map , didn't do nothing the all game.

A NC that spent the entire game blue lining without firing once, only engaging a Nagato with HE in the last two minutes of the game, ends up second? Why?

the only plausible answer i see must be how the points are awarded.

Massa was defensive the entire game and he didn't survived

Izumo charged the RUBB at the end costing a good portion of it's HP in  one go.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
10,967 posts
9,438 battles
1 minute ago, Butterdoll said:

According to @DFens_666 he wasn't feeling comfortable in that island he was afraid of being outflanked /rammed from both sides or either side, so, in that regard, the next island was better because it has a choke point in one of the sides. 

And in the end he didn't pulled distance nor stayed close enough to the island, he stayed in between, in the open where the reds could shoot at him and he was too close to the reds between 9 and 11 kms.

to me, was when and where he lost his game i didn't say he threw the game or the game was lost because of him.

 

Just to make sure

image.png.06c7b7f38d34c7d666f48e5667aeeaef.png

 

I meant that island, way earlier in the game. With help from my teammates, it could have been potentially better and stop the enemies from pushing out. Or if they did, they could get crossfired. But since everything was working against that, i saw no reason to go there. I did talk with @ForlornSailor about the same, he also said, maybe i should have gone closer to the island instead. But as i said, i think it would have been worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×