Talon's little list

[IronWolfV]

Well guys as we've just finished the summer and I haven't done my list of things WG could do to really flesh out this game some, it's time once again for me to list it out.  

 

WARNING! This is going to be a VERY long post so I'm going to break it down for you in hidden sections.  So without further adieu here we go.

 

1. SIMPLICITY!

 This is going to be a bit shorter than the others, but it's going to tie into EVERYTHING so it deserves to be brought up before we really dive in.  This game as I've said numerous times (and props to iChase for saying it in a video of his) this game is FAR too simplistic.  I mean I get it's trying to bring in the casual player and use the K.I.S.S.(Keep It Simple Stupid) principal, but they have gone TOO simplistic. This means that balancing things are a real pain in the neck as minor changes can cause major waves.  Increase AA effectiveness say 10% across the board can really disrupt carrier game play. Dropping it 10% the other way can make carrier planes neigh unstoppable.  This simplicity HAS to give way so there are more things to balance around.

 

I'm not advocating it should be so complex you need a master's degree in applied science to play the game but we went WAY too far in KISS that it's now degrading game play.

 

2. Damage control

 Before I can even go into specific ships, I have to stop and bring this up.  This is one of my major beefs with WG and I've repeatedly brought this idea up and have gotten pretty positive responses on the idea. The magic heal buttons we have now are simply ASININE.  The HP regen for BBs is actually a good idea because it gives them more robustness and that's where BBs should really shine, their ability to take a freaking BEATING but stay in action.  Now instead of the repair button, and 1 and done and everything is fixed, I propose this: multiple repair parties.  But repair parties that can only fix one situation at a time.

 

Now repair parties basically get broken down by how big your crew would be. Smaller the crew, lower the repair parties.  So yes DDs get hosed in this regard because they simply don't have the larger crews to repair more battle damage, but considering all the other goodies they get, that's the checks and blances.  For all that speed and concealment, you simply can't repair damage well. *gasp* a balancing tool right here! and with a bit of complexity!

-1 repair party: Lower tier DDs. Basically as we have now, but instead of repairing everything at once, that party can only fight fires or stop flooding.

-2 repair parties: lower tier cruisers. Basically tier 5 and below cruisers, though I should say the tier 1 cruisers fall into the 1 repair party area because of low crews.

-3 repair parties: Lower tier carriers and higher tier light cruisers: Atlanta and Cleveland and a lot of the russian cruisers fall into this area. And the smaller escort carriers fall into this branch.

-4 Repair parties: Higher tier cruisers, lower tier battleships, fleet carriers.  As battleships are more robust and have bigger crews they can repair more damage at a lower tier, the bigger benefit of driving a BB. And as time went on with cruisers they too started getting bigger crews and more robust damage control and ofcourse carriers slide into this category.

-5 repair parties: Higher tier BBs. Again built to as Jackie Fisher once stated "give it to them as fast as they can take it".

 

This gives an edge to BBs in damage control, but I feel is a pretty even distribution of damage control. Tin cans, simply can't suck up and repair the kind of damage that BBs can but the flip side is, they are faster and have the higher concealment.

 

Now the actual parties can fix up to 1 problem at a time. Example say your deck is on fire stem to stern, you can send a repair party out to fix and control it. However should another fire start after you've sent a repair party out to fix it, gotta burn up another to stop that fire, or should you start flooding, or something else be damaged. Yes it's still kind of a magic heal, but it can't heal everything at once, only 1 thing at a time. This does give BBs an edge, but it also allows for damage control to be effectively swamped if you do enough damage to different systems or get focused fire.

 

3. Extraneous damage(fires and flooding)

 Oh WG, how you took the easy way out here. A few changes and again you make for some more interesting times. Flooding damage by and large is in a good place.  But I'd also like to bring back listing.  I mean lets face it, if you take a lot of flooding damage to one side, ship should list to that side some throwing off accuracy.  That could be looked at as many Alpha testers did like the buoyancy factor.

 

Now onto fires. Time and again I've brought this up so I'll do so again here. External fires SHOULD NOT do as much damage as they do. And furthermore a 5 inch shell should not start the same size fire as a 14 inch shell. That's just lazy programming. However, a 5 inch shell should be able to start more fires or feed a fire into becoming a big of fire as a 14 inch shell might start. Just a few ways to make fires more dynamic.  Also fires should be split up into 2 ares. External and internal.

 

External fires. Do MINIMAL FIRE DAMAGE. Maybe 50 damage a tick. Not a whole hell of a lot of damage, however they should do some if not all of the following.  Completely remove concealment. You're on fire, you stick out like a sore thumb.  Also should foul up range finders, giving you less range and increasing dispersion. Reduce the effectiveness of lower caliber AA fire and actually if the fire continues on start destroying lower caliber AA emplacements.  Also depending on where the fire is and also depending on how much  structural damage there is, it could become an INTERNAL FIRE.

 

Internal fires. Here are the major fire damage dealers. They do the current damage per tick depending on how many fires are going and they also have the chance of causing a detonation due to fire reaching the boilers, coal or ammo storage. This is the kind of fire you go "OH CRAP!" 

 

4. Module damage

 Here I'm talking about the modules themselves.  Here's somewhere else WG went a tad too simplistic.  All you can do is temporarily knock them out or destroy them. And when you do destroy them, you simply can't use them. Like knocking out a torpedo launcher doesn't cause secondary explosions, or knocking out a 3 inch gun on the Cleveland doesn't do anything.  This is something I don't agree with, and while I am at it, I also do not agree with the whole being able to completely knock out a turret.  So let's break this down.

 

4a.  Turret destruction. I've come to see that this is simply annoying as hell. I agree with turrets should not be permanently knocked out.  Instead we should keep the temporary knock out that simply causes the gun to be out for about 20 seconds and either needs to be reloaded or ready to fire, then go with this. A longer knock out say 1 minute or so, but when the weapon is brought back online, all of it's functions are degraded by half. It has worse dispersion, longer reload times, slower turret traverse. Basically that turret is working on a wing and a prayer and it also makes it easier to knock it out again and again for up to 1 minute at a time, till a repair party is used to fix the weapon.

 

For torpedo launchers does the same. Longer reload, slower traverse and a chance that the torps launched could fire duds, or the torps misfire and launch but do not run at all. 

 

4b. Secondary damage.  When secondary turrets are knocked out, all you do is lose that turret you really don't suffer any damage. There are no secondary explosions.  Cause that turret if it's loaded or in the process of being loaded is moving projectiles, powder, etc. When struck that stuff EXPLODES.  So when destroying say a dual 5 inch emplacement on a NC for example, when it explodes it should do some extra damage, say 1000 or so HP worth of damage.  Now if you simply knocked out the gun, well it doesn't explode but if you completely destroy the turret(and this is one time where my previous 4A doesn't apply since it's a secondary turret) or gun in the case of say a Pensacola firing the single mount 127/25caliber gun, should do a bit of extra damage.

 

And in the case of torps, if they are loaded and on deck when module is struck and KO'd, those fish should explode for secondary damage, if the torps are empty at the time, no damage. This also applies if a carrier is struck on the flight deck with planes being reloaded. Just like IJN carriers at Midway. If there are no planes on the deck, damage as normal, but if planes are being reloaded, there's fuel and ordinance on the deck, well that stuff goes boom when hit, extra damage.  This is how we solve making fires externally do less damage, but give cruisers and DDs chances to do damage to BBs that don't involve burning it to the ground.  And destroying those turrets could also give chances for starting internal fires.

 

5. Carrier mechanics

 God what a Mess. Only reason I'm putting this in, is because carriers need a comprehensive top down look at. Everything from National flavor, to doing damage, to spotting to everything. I could spend a whole thread on changes that could be done so I'm not even going to attempt it here.  Needless to say, WG, it's time to go back to basics and start again here.

 

6. Damage is king

 I throwing this a bone because I feel I have to, but I think WG is already listening.  Damage is the only way to get A LOT of credits and XP and this is promoting a lot of the Solo play that is completely at odds with a team focused game.  There's no spotting, abysmal rewards for taking down planes, no kill assists for ships and other things just missing from a game like this.

 

Tanks does a far superior job of this and it's time WoWS starts emulating some of these things. But WG here has listened and from what I know it's on the horizon and should really shake up the dynamic of the game.

 

6. Edit: Player knowledge

 This is one I missed and thanks to Lert I feel it should be added in.  Lert has some issues with making the game more complex as many players can't grasp simple things like Angling your ship, which ammo to use in specific situations and so on. And I feel that is something that is in DRASTIC need of change. It's the simple fact that WG is not putting this knowledge out there, and the tutorial module is the way to go on this.

 

I would make multiple modules for training.  Gunnery, ship handling, armor mechanics and angling, how to do auto vs manual drops for carriers, how smoke works, I mean there are lots of modules to help players learn and grasp the basic mechanics.  And sad as it sounds, WG should put incentives for doing these modules.

 

Let's take gunnery for instance. There could be the basics of gunnery, then intermediate gunnery to build on the basic's building blocks then advanced gunnery putting even more ontop of it.  And there should be rewards for completing each.  Say basics you get 250,000 credits. Intermediate gives 500,000 credits and maybe say 25 dubloons, or 500.000 and Aiming systems mod 1.  Advanced gives you a mil and say 100 dubloons.  Stuff like that to make people want to do them. And that's the reward for the first time through. I'd leave these as repeatable, but after the first time, no rewards given, but you can redo them if you missed something or wish to try again.

 

And complete enough modules per say and you get a 7 point captain of your choice per nation. Complete half get say 1k dubloons, or a freebie premium ship.  Complete them all, say you get a tier 5 premium ship like Marblehead or could be a premium ship just for completing the modules.

 

Something to A. teach the players the mechanics, and B reward them for actually doing the training.

 

Now to be fair it won't help everyone. Some might just blow though them for the goodies at the end. But it would put the info out there and I think it would generally help players grasp the game.

I could go on to hit other points, but I think I've really hit the BIG points of what I think should be changed that could really shake up the game and really start giving more dynamic play and really start giving more things to check and balance the game with.

 

TL;DR:  Simplicity is killing the game, there are ways which I listed to help break the game loose and give the game more depth it sorely needs.

 

Edit:  These are simply my ideas and thoughts. By no means do I consider them the ultimate idea or what WG should do or else. Just what I think that could shake the game loose and really start giving some depth to the game. If you disagree or have different ideas or tweaks, please leave them below. And please, let's keep this civil.

[Amogussy]

Not everyone in the community is smart, they need the simplicity in the game (although it can be reworked) to help out the potatos

[Doctor_Vopper]

Personally i would love their to be a higher skill cap because of a more complex system. Some mechanics I think need to remain simple for the newer players but some mechanics could have more intricacy and difficulty which would raise the skill cap.

 

All in all great review of the current game 

[IronWolfV]

Not everyone in the community is smart, they need the simplicity in the game (although it can be reworked) to help out the potatos

 

I'm not saying completely throw out simplicity. It's a good thing, but there are things where they can go more indepth where even potatoes can still grasp the game easily.

[LuminousWraith]

Talon, I do happen to like your ideas for Spotting, AA kills, etc. I play mostly USN BBs and I'm more than happy to play a support role of AA protection and firepower projection(Projection because hitting targets at max range is a gamble RNGJesus uses loaded dice with). If they made supporting your team worth it, I'm sure many people would be all for moving in a concerted effort. Not always having a game be "every man for himself, do "ALL" the damage, sink ships and be a rock star."

[MaliceA4Thought]

Interesting post, and I agree, too simplistic..  however you're going to get a lot of people screaming.. it's a game not a simulator, but I believe, as you do, theres a middle ground and that additional complexity can be introduced without just introducing overtly penalising mechanics,  most of which are just not fun.

 

I really miss the days of some of the more interesting ideas that were tried..  shallows that only certain ship types could pass through...  flooding damage as well as overall damage.

 

I have long agreed about Damage control parties having different types and locations on a ship and having more skill involved in management of damage and I agree the BB heal  is very World of Warcraft   I believe it should be more of a "limit" damage mechanism rather than a "recovery" mechanism which would also tie into LWM's ideas about detonations.. ie.. you have x seconds to prevent catastrophic damage from a skillful hit.

 

Module damage is another (IMO) oversimplified mechanism, but am aware that would take a major coding rework.

 

As to keep it simple for new commers,  well we already have that mechanism, but it's not granular enough..  we have a new player going through service record..  eg  at level 1 they can only play co-op..  at level 4 they get Missions..  at level 7 they get Ship commander skills opening up..  but (again IMO)  they are got through too fast..  I have been watching my step son play and after 50 battles he is already at Service Record 10 out of 12..   to me that is way to fast.   you could use this mechanism to bring in additional complexity...  eg service record 0 - 3 is just a basic damge indicator  but at service record 4, flooding damage is introduced.      at service record 0 and 1  all ships can go everywhere but at 2 you introduce shallows.    At each service record increase there is a video which can explain these things...  it's not WG's fault if the player doesnt spend 5 minutes watching them.

 

However..  as I said, I think you pass through these service records to fast..  I would have thought it would be more appropriate to have it take 500 games to get to SR 10 than 50...  or maybe we need more levels in the game to take longer.. and if you want a real left field idea..  why not link the tier of ship you can play to your service record ( or another type of record level) and tracking whether they have watched the videos thus forcing a certain number of battles before you can advance to the next tier to stop people jumping straight to high tiers.

 

Now, I realise that this would impact some of the revenue streams that WG has, but I am sure that with some thought and effort, ways round that could be found.

 

M

[SireneRacker]

1. No problem with that but this game should be newb-friendly. They shouldn't do stuff that could scare away new players

 

2. Just to make sure: Can I control what my Repair Parties do? For example when my Hatsuharu (with Last Stand) has a fire and engine damage I would favor them to go for the fire first. But when I'm under fire I would prefer to repair the engine first.

 

3. I don't know if it should throw of Accuracy, but it could take effect on your firing angles, For example when I'm listing 10° to port I can't really fire anymore at starbord on short ranges. Also would it be possible to get rid of the water? Your story with internal and external fire sounds good so far.

 

4. I personally would replace the permanent knockout either with mybe the loss of a barrel or a decreased accuracy as the optics got messed up. No decrease in traverse speed or reload time. Torp Tubes firing Duds are something I don't appreciate as they already fire slow enough and have bad hit ratios. Don't want that to become worse. Secondary damage why not?

 

5. agreed

 

6. I would also implement aircraft kills and tanked/blocked damage into this. How to determine what damage was tanked/blocked is something I don't know but when a Battleship decides to sacrifice himself for the fleet so they can advance/escape he should get a reward for that.

 

 

[IronWolfV]

1. No problem with that but this game should be newb-friendly. They shouldn't do stuff that could scare away new players

 

2. Just to make sure: Can I control what my Repair Parties do? For example when my Hatsuharu (with Last Stand) has a fire and engine damage I would favor them to go for the fire first. But when I'm under fire I would prefer to repair the engine first.

 

3. I don't know if it should throw of Accuracy, but it could take effect on your firing angles, For example when I'm listing 10° to port I can't really fire anymore at starbord on short ranges. Also would it be possible to get rid of the water? Your story with internal and external fire sounds good so far.

 

4. I personally would replace the permanent knockout either with mybe the loss of a barrel or a decreased accuracy as the optics got messed up. No decrease in traverse speed or reload time. Torp Tubes firing Duds are something I don't appreciate as they already fire slow enough and have bad hit ratios. Don't want that to become worse. Secondary damage why not?

 

5. agreed

 

6. I would also implement aircraft kills and tanked/blocked damage into this. How to determine what damage was tanked/blocked is something I don't know but when a Battleship decides to sacrifice himself for the fleet so they can advance/escape he should get a reward for that.

 

 

Far as repair parties, yes you could pick and choose what to fix and when. Should of clarified that sorry.

[renegadestatuz]

Good write up Talon. I like these ideas.

[Crucis]

Personally i would love their to be a higher skill cap because of a more complex system. Some mechanics I think need to remain simple for the newer players but some mechanics could have more intricacy and difficulty which would raise the skill cap.

 

All in all great review of the current game 

 

I think that you mean skill floor.

[VTAdmiral]

I remember proposing an idea very similar to your Damage Control "Multiple parties" concept way back in CBT. It was largely ignored.

 

Part of that idea was if you wind up using all your parties, the recharge on all of them is extended considerably, so you have the choice: Do you put out that last fire and take the penalty cooldown, or do you wait it out so you don't overload your damage control?

[IronWolfV]

I remember proposing an idea very similar to your Damage Control "Multiple parties" concept way back in CBT. It was largely ignored.

 

Part of that idea was if you wind up using all your parties, the recharge on all of them is extended considerably, so you have the choice: Do you put out that last fire and take the penalty cooldown, or do you wait it out so you don't overload your damage control?

 

Which makes more tactical decision making giving depth to the game.

[Lert]

I disagree with the simplicity thing. The game is already too complicated for too many people who still believe that sailing broadside is the smart thing because 'that's how they did it in the 18th century' and people who still don't understand that the funny circles on the map have a prize in them, people who still don't understand what that funny colored square with moving triangles and such to the bottom right of their screen is, etc.

[VTAdmiral]

I disagree with the simplicity thing. The game is already too complicated for too many people who still believe that sailing broadside is the smart thing because 'that's how they did it in the 18th century' and people who still don't understand that the funny circles on the map have a prize in them, people who still don't understand what that funny colored square with moving triangles and such to the bottom right of their screen is, etc.

 

There's a point in a person's life where they should really consider learning how to succeed at what the hell they're trying to do.

 

EDIT: I don't remember if Talon's looked over my rework or not, considering he brought up carrier mechanics.

[Lert]

There's a point in a person's life where they should really consider learning how to succeed at what the hell they're trying to do.

 

Too many people don't. So making the game more complicated than it is isn't going to do anything but widen the divide between great and terrible players. Considering the fact that the vast majority of players are really not good at the game, all this will do is make PUG play standards drop even lower.

 

Yes, the game is running on a highly simplified simulation of reality, and that's a good thing. It already allows player skill to shine, while still being more-or-less accessible to the unwashed masses. Making it more complicated than 'highly simplified' is only going to lead to the standard of play in random battles becoming even lower, and to more frustration from people who're good at the game.

[IronWolfV]

 

Too many people don't. So making the game more complicated than it is isn't going to do anything but widen the divide between great and terrible players. Considering the fact that the vast majority of players are really not good at the game, all this will do is make PUG play standards drop even lower.

 

That may be true lert, but when it comes to balancing ships, there's too few things to tinker with and those small changes can have sweeping effects on the game.  If a person can't wrap their heads around the simple dynamics of the game, that's their look out and well WG's in not teaching them through training modules.

[Lert]

That may be true lert, but when it comes to balancing ships, there's too few things to tinker with and those small changes can have sweeping effects on the game.  If a person can't wrap their heads around the simple dynamics of the game, that's their look out and well WG's in not teaching them through training modules.

 

Ideally speaking youre right. But the world is not ideal. Far from.

 

Making the game more complicated isn't going to automagically make everyone who plays the game smarter and play better. The average skill level of the average player is going to remain the same. Which means that raising the bar for 'adequate understanding' (IE, making things less simplified) is only going to mean that more players fall below that bar, and the standard of play is going to be lower.

 

The vast majority of players doesn't come to the forum, doesn't read guides, doesn't really think about what they're doing, doesn't keep up with the news, doesn't invest time in understanding game mechanics, they're just - to put it bluntly - point-and-click monkeys. And they're the bulk of the players you'll meet in any given random battle.

 

Plus, why is simplicity a bad thing? The mechanics already allow for the skilled players who do invest in actually learning the game to float to the top and achieve far better results than the point-and-click monkeys. Why does the game need to be more complicated?

[IronWolfV]

 

Ideally speaking youre right. But the world is not ideal. Far from.

 

Making the game more complicated isn't going to automagically make everyone who plays the game smarter and play better. The average skill level of the average player is going to remain the same. Which means that raising the bar for 'adequate understanding' (IE, making things less simplified) is only going to mean that more players fall below that bar, and the standard of play is going to be lower.

 

The vast majority of players doesn't come to the forum, doesn't read guides, doesn't really think about what they're doing, doesn't keep up with the news, doesn't invest time in understanding game mechanics, they're just - to put it bluntly - point-and-click monkeys. And they're the bulk of the players you'll meet in any given random battle.

 

Plus, why is simplicity a bad thing? The mechanics already allow for the skilled players who do invest in actually learning the game to float to the top and achieve far better results than the point-and-click monkeys. Why does the game need to be more complicated?

 

Because it's falling flat, and I think it would solve the immense cries of "NERF EVERYTHING!"  And what I'm talking about isn't that much more complicated than what we have now.

[Lert]

Because it's falling flat, and I think it would solve the immense cries of "NERF EVERYTHING!"  And what I'm talking about isn't that much more complicated than what we have now.

 

1) People cry 'nerf everything' because they can't see further than their own nose and don't understand the synergy of ship stats and gameplay mechanics (combining into ship roles) that we already have. IE, the state of the game as is, highly simplified, is already too complicated for them

 

2) I'm not talking about all those other points. I'm talking about the notion that the game is 'too simple'.

 

3) How do you mean, 'falling flat'?

 

4) You still haven't explained why the transparent simplicity is a bad thing.

 

5) IMO what's holding the game back is lack of clan functionality, competitive clan play, lack of tutorials, the slow pace of new content, etc. Not the apparent simplicity.

 

6) If the game is 'too simplistic', why does the bulk of players already seem unable to grasp the concepts of angling, WASDing and base-capping?

 

7) You asked for opinions. My opinion is that the game is right where it needs to be in terms of transparent simplicity vs mechanics good players can use to come out on top. The game needs help in other places, listed at point 5. You (and iChase) are entitled to your opinion. I'm not trying to take that away. I'm simply disagreeing.

 

This video comes to mind:

 

[IronWolfV]

 

1) People cry 'nerf everything' because they can't see further than their own nose and don't understand the synergy of ship stats and gameplay mechanics (combining into ship roles) that we already have. IE, the state of the game as is, highly simplified, is already too complicated for them

 

2) I'm not talking about all those other points. I'm talking about the notion that the game is 'too simple'.

 

3) How do you mean, 'falling flat'?

 

4) You still haven't explained why the transparent simplicity is a bad thing.

 

5) IMO what's holding the game back is lack of clan functionality, competitive clan play, lack of tutorials, the slow pace of new content, etc. Not the apparent simplicity.

 

6) If the game is 'too simplistic', why does the bulk of players already seem unable to grasp the concepts of angling, WASDing and base-capping?

 

7) You asked for opinions. My opinion is that the game is right where it needs to be in terms of transparent simplicity vs mechanics good players can use to come out on top. The game needs help in other places, listed at point 5. You (and iChase) are entitled to your opinion. I'm not trying to take that away. I'm simply disagreeing.

 

This video comes to mind:

 

Lert, I'm not talking about tossing away all simplicity. I just feel the game is lacking a lot of depth. Magic heal buttons that fix everything but have a LONG cool down. Really doesn't help with battleships seeming to have a lot of robustness.  AA vs planes and carrier mechanics in general are a mess.

 

Far as some of your other posts that's simply solved by like you and I have said, WG not having a lot of training modules to help teach players, and that's probably something I should of put in.  What you're bringing up is lack of knowledge and yes that's a good major fault with the game. 

 

If you'll excuse me, I'll go put that in the original post.

[Lert]

I just feel the game is lacking a lot of depth

 

<Opinion follows>

 

That's where you and I will disagree most vehemently I think. IMO there's already so much depth that even decent players like yourself are not aware of it, or unable to utilize it. I mean, if you did / could, why aren't you a solid purple?

 

The depth in this game isn't so much in the mechanics (though in part they are, see things like angling, target prioritization ammo choice, equipment loadout, captain skill choice, etc) but in understanding the flow of the battle. Using your minimap, knowing when to be where to offer the greatest influence on the match. Positioning. One of my favorite people to division with is LWM because she has a level of understanding of this very aspect of the game that I simply don't. She'll recognise when to flex where long before I will, and she'll tell me when to go where, while explaining why. This not only helps us win more and helps me stay alive longer to do more damage, but it shows that there is a level of depth to this game that she grasps, yet I don't.

 

Depth this game has. Complexity it does not need any more of - especially complexity without purpose, like I see suggested many times on this forum. Not claiming your suggestions aren't without merit, thought or good intentions - just that many suggestions on this forum aren't.

 

</opinion>

 

A fact is that I don't possess enough understanding of the depth of choice this game offers to make myself a solid blue or purple. IE, there's already more depth to this game than I am capable of understanding / utilizing. Depth people like KamiSamurai are able to utilize.

 

[IronWolfV]

 

<Opinion follows>

 

That's where you and I will disagree most vehemently I think. IMO there's already so much depth that even decent players like yourself are not aware of it, or unable to utilize it. I mean, if you did / could, why aren't you a solid purple?

 

The depth in this game isn't so much in the mechanics (though in part they are, see things like angling, target prioritization ammo choice, equipment loadout, captain skill choice, etc) but in understanding the flow of the battle. Using your minimap, knowing when to be where to offer the greatest influence on the match. Positioning. One of my favorite people to division with is LWM because she has a level of understanding of this very aspect of the game that I simply don't. She'll recognise when to flex where long before I will, and she'll tell me when to go where, while explaining why. This not only helps us win more and helps me stay alive longer to do more damage, but it shows that there is a level of depth to this game that she grasps, yet I don't.

 

Depth this game has. Complexity it does not need any more of.

 

</opinion>

 

A fact is that I don't possess enough understanding of the depth of choice this game offers to make myself a solid blue or purple. IE, there's already more depth to this game than I am capable of understanding / utilizing.

I can grasp them and I do, reason I'm not better, I have tendencies that get me wasted before I can properly utilize them most times. I derp. I can't help it. I feel if I am not pushing objectives and getting the tactical imitative then I am not doing my job, regardless of the ship I am playing. I'm a bulldog, you say go at the enemy, I go full speed at them.

 

That's why I'm not a solid purple player.

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

 

snip

 

The fact that there is some depth in specific parts of the game does not mean some other parts are oversimplified to the point that they work poorly and need to be reworked. 

[Lert]

I have tendencies that get me wasted before I can properly utilize them most times.

 

I know I'm the same. Too agressive. Because I can't see when not to be, until it's too late. Because I miss the understanding of the depth of choice this game already offers, and the consequences of choosing.

 

The fact that there is some depth in specific parts of the game does not mean some other parts are oversimplified to the point that they work poorly and need to be reworked. 

 

Granted. It's just my strong opinion that there's a lot of work that has higher priority, to help point-and-click monkeys understanding the complexity - however simplified - that already exists.

 

<Edit>

 

IE, raise the standard of play in random matches by better education before adding additional complexity. But that's just my opinion.

[MaliceA4Thought]

Islands are too complex

 

M