• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

2,776 Superb

About issm

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile issm

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Portal profile issm

Recent Profile Visitors

1,292 profile views
  1. Yeah. I mean, it's not easy,but its also not insanely hard.
  2. I don't see a problem? 30k and top 3 isn't that hard.
  3. IIRC shallow water WAS part of the game earlier on. It was removed for being a bad mechanic.
  4. And at the end of the day, nothing you said matters. I don't care how the modes are constructed, or how the rewards are delivered. If my specific goals happen to match the game's stated design, then so be it. If not, you can deal with it. I'm also amazed at how much of your argument boils down to one simple idea: Conform to the group. Like seriously, actual arguments, however flawed, as to why this is a team game, only took up a third of your post. The rest of it was all "But other players think something else", and "you're a laughing stock to us". And? Why should I care if a bunch of people I don't like don't like me either?
  5. Yeah, see, thing is, while people do move together more often in ranked, THEY DO NOT PUSH. That's kind of why ranked gameplay is cancerously boring.
  6. And would you accept that the world was flat if a poll found that 80% of people believed it? It is objective reality that World of Warships is a computer program that can be used however the player wishes to. Sure, the publisher imposes some rules, but those are more akin to rules programmed into the game than the "unoffical code of conduct" type "rules" you're pushing. I don't care how many people believe I have some sort of obligation to the rest of you, that is simply not objectively true.
  7. Judge away. I do it all the time. But there's a difference between "judging" people for how they play, and arguing that people who don't play how you want to should not be permitted to play at all - like some of your buddies have.
  8. Randoms, ranked, team battles, all just software that players can use however they want to. It's not "my personal belief", it's reality.
  9. The situation means EVERYTHING. Part of the act of "sinking another ship" is finding it, and getting in range. While some CVs might be easy to kill, they are still the most difficult ships to find and get in range of by a significant margin. The Minotaur, actually. If you can't locate the target, it doesn't matter how vulnerable you are to surface gunnery. Ignoring the concealment aspect of survival is to strip away hugely important context in the discussion of ship survivabilty. Hurray for more false dichotomies! No, I can not be 100% certain that CVs have a greater than normal impact on matches without quantitative data. But that does NOT mean that I don't know anything. I can look at the capabilities of CVs relative to other ships and make a strong prediction. For example, I can look at the fact that CVs are more capable of suppressing their counterpart than any other class. I can look at the fact that CVs deal damage competitive with battleships, while still having a strong spotting component to their power that remains unquantified with publicly available stats. I can look at the fact that CVs are more capable of surviving throughout the match while maintaining the ability to impact the match. So while I can't be certain that CVs definitely have an excessive impact on games (For that matter, not even statistics will tell you 100% that they do), but I can be pretty damn sure of it. Airstrikes from BVR in between surface engagements =/= influencing a naval battle. There are certainly instances where you could say that CVs participated in a naval battle, but those are rare exceptions, not the rule. The only solid case in history was the Battle off Samar during Leyte Gulf, and that instance is not relevant to WoWS since, you know, there were only CVs on one side, while WoWS enforces mirror MM. And WoWS emulates naval strategy, like crossing the T. Oh, no, wait. Using historical strategies gets you killed, it doesn't make you better, No, CVs are not a part of naval combat. They replaced naval combat. CVs are to naval combat what machine guns were to cavalry charges. The former rendered the latter obsolete. No, saying that CVs are irrelevant to a Naval game is like saying that For Honor shouldn't have musket volleys or field guns. Sure, artillery and Samurai might have faced off in a real conflict, but that conflict basically just proved that te old way of fighting was obsolete and should be abandoned - kind of like what CVs did to conventional naval combat. If this were true, you would only be hearing complaints aout one line of CVs. In reality, you hear complaints about both lines, and the complains aren't usually aimed at each lines' unique abilities. For example, OP complained about CVs focusing him as soon as he pushes - both IJN and USN CVs fit this bill. Permaspotting DDs, nuking BBs, etc, are all things that both IJN and USN can do quite effectively. It's just that IJN can do all those things, with the additional benefit of being able to slap down USN in the same loadout. So, while, yes, IJN vs USN is a problem, it's far from the ONLY problem.
  10. And that's where you're wrong. I have zero obligation to demonstrate an effort. This is not a team game, this is a piece of software on which you can play a team game. While you might want to use this software to play a team game, others, including myself, are happy to play our solo games beside the rest of the playerbase.
  11. No, he was quite specific that he believed players had an obligation to pull their weight: You also have people saying things like this: Where people are clearly expressing that they don't think it's acceptable for anyone to play in a way they view as "being a liability", i.e., not playing to win. Nice try at whitewashing their opinions though.
  12. You sure about that? You have people like VGLance claming that you have a "moral responsibility" or something to pull your weight, which implies that you MUST try to win. Posts like OP's, which suggest a certain minimum standard of performance to receive any rewards, or Akula's suggestion that one must have a certain WTR to play high tiers also implies that they have a specific idea of how the game should be played. Certainly, no one explicitly came out to say that people MUST play this game to achieve the game's stated victory conditions, but reading between the lines makes your mindset perfectly clear.
  13. The fact that the majority of the playerbase simply will not adopt your solution also makes it a non starter as solution.
  14. That's kind of the point though: It's a strategy that only works for a minority of players. The more people who adopt your solution, the less well it works, until you reach the point where the "solution" is worse than the problem it set out to solve. That's not really a "solution" to the problem.
  15. "Passive players lose" is a complete non sequitur from "one team wins, one team loses". In ranked, there are many cases where a team wins by on team capping their base a few seconds early, then just passively defend to win the match, while picking off the opposing team, which is forced to attack for a chance of winning. Your idea that the "truly" passive players will always lose is simply incorrect.