Epicurus_

RDF is used to detect the general direction of the closest enemy boat not to detect torpedoes in the water. Why do you keep bringing up RDF when it does not tell you where the torpedoes are or how many DD's are shadowing you. To answer the question that has been asked, Vigilance could be useful in ships with large turning circles. I wouldn't necessarily choose it in a DD if I could use engine boost which will help me avoid torpedoes and would allow me to use skill points on another skill like BOS. The wiki does say that the skill stacks with ship upgrades such as hydro acoustic so you could use in a German DD and extend the range of your hydro, which could be of use in ranked gameplay especially if we ever see low tier ranked battles again.

I meant in game tutorials not extra source, It's fine that they have it and all but it's not in game and it's only going to be viewed by those who wish to see it.

No tutorials made by the games producer in this case WG, it's not really the sort of thing that they do these days because they are aware that either players ignore them in favor of jumping in and learning as they go or they'll produce a very minimal tutorial but not usually. Besides which introducing a tutorial after a player progresses to tier 3? They didn't do it for CV's so why for any other class that's not going to have as much impact as CV's

When was the last time you saw a tutorial released for a game?

There are more players with bad statistics than good which would increase the queue time for players of higher skill and when you follow that through to it's logical conclusion the higher the skill level the longer the queue time. Statistically when flipping a coin you are more likely to land a head than a tail (51 times out of 100). If you are playing against players of equal skill then you would probably see the same statistical outcome, a near 50% W/R over X amount of games. Play golf, you get a handicap. Of course that doesn't stop a better golfer from having a good game it just means that players of less skill can feel better about their score at the end of the course. Real estate agents get commissions for sales, those that sell more homes earn better commissions would it be fair for agents to not get paid commensurate to their results for the sake of those that perform poorly? I'm pretty sure I could find other examples where those who perform well are rewarded proportionally to their effort. The same goes for equally skilled players, they would balance out and all would eventually have a near 50% W/R. How do you determine who is a better player and how do you prevent players skill metrics from averaging out towards the 50% region? If you based it on damage dealt it might prevent it but I suspect the games would turn out more like ranked matches where everyone camps. Then players that normally manage to pull big number games no longer pull such big numbers and are placed in games where everyone pulls similar low numbers. Eventually good players would yo yo between big number games and low number games as their skill would see them club when dropping back down to low damage games.

I don't like the Karma system and I think it gives license to players that have limited knowledge of the game to continue having no clue. Meaning would your view about your actions in game change if you thought you were right about a certain action and you had this magic button in front of you that you could press and receive instant gratification that you are right and by pressing the button proves you are right. "No need to reflect on what I did wrong in this battle I'll just press this button here and neg player X because I'm right". Of course this is a moot point because it's not WG's responsibility to improve the mind set of it's player base and while ever it's there it probably reduces the amount of nuisance emails they receive from players complaining about player X's actions.

Hey after more than six months I've turned pink twice in two days (It was my fault unequivocally on one occasion the second one was a friendly that blundered into my torps that picked off two low HP enemy ships moments beforehand which is still my responsibility) I don't care how much you think the system is unfair it's supposed to stop trolls so deal with it. Also so what if the player laughs after being sunk by friendly torps this is not evidence that they deliberately steered into their path have you not heard the phrase "revenge is sweet" YOU JUST TORPEDOED HIM! of course he's gonna laugh at you.

Sounds to me like you did what you could. There's no point in staying in a cap and trying to contest it with no HP left, you made the right choice you are still able to impact the game by staying in the game so just ignore those that have no clue.

As I recall the reasons for shell dispersal given by WG in the past was to deter aim bot usage and also to prevent the +20km snipe during CBT in low/mid tier games. It was fairly common during CBT that players would fire from their Fuso at max range and instantly delete players at the outset of the battle. Added into the dispersal calculations is a penalty for bad aim, the more off target your shot is the worse the dispersal of your shells so if you are getting a lot of shell dispersal you might need to focus more on your aim than blaming the game for bad dispersal. Don't think I'm trying to be mean I'm not. As far as collision penalties go the games not sophisticated enough and neither is computers in general to make a judgment on who is responsible for a collision the game simply applies a penalty to both players for a collision and the collision penalty is not nearly severe enough to cause a player to go pink from just that. If you've had half your health disappear then you've more likely hit an ally with your torpedoes which is something that you are responsible for because at tier 6 and below there isn't too many long range torpedoes and as such you must be firing torpedoes without considering the location of allies nearby. In short self examination may required to resolve some of your issues.

Yeah Belfast is a powerful ship but in most cases a game isn't won by the presence of one ship and to poorly demonstrate how match making can fail isn't going to be the most convincing argument. You said "a bunch of T5 ships were match against a side with a Belfast T7 and she a tricky ship to handle". Ok what happened, what ships were involved, what ships were with the Belfast, what mistakes were made. All of these elements and more lead to a loss it's not going to be just match making that causes the problem. The real problem with matchmaker (in most cases) is not that it puts people into matches they can't handle but that many players over estimate their skill or the ship's abilities when they are in the game which leads to them over extending themselves and getting focus fired. After they are sunk what's their reaction do you think? they are going to blame MM, blame team mates, blame RNG. Instead of taking a look in the mirror and accepting that it was them that had put themselves in the position that saw their ship being sunk. There's a number of common errors players will make that each can lead to a loss and none of them are the fault of match making. If WG was to make your suggestions it wouldn't make an ounce of difference to players making the same mistakes, then what? a new match making tier system?

correction; I was thinking of Adrenaline rush and Last Stand as 3 point skills at the time. The only 3 point skill I have selected after Superintendent has been BOS.

That's not the main issue OP has stated that SE is a useful skill and everyone that has commented has mockingly opposed that point of view. Whether the heal is scaled with tier or not SE is still not as useful as other skills.

Crap I was so dumbfounded by SE is a useful skill I missed that 16+km range. At most I would pick two 3 point skills but never for a B.B. from memory and it would ALWAYS be a more useful skill than SE. Frankly I’m astounded after 6k battles THIS is what you posted.

I would suggest the Alabama her AA suite is sweet, is very maneuverable and her guns do hit harder than Tirpitz. Whereas the Tirpitz is vulnerable to air attack but has good secondaries and maneuverable but her torpedoes tend to get knocked out pretty regularly and have a short range which limit their usefulness when it comes to a brawl. Not to say Tirpitz is bad but I think Alabama is a better ship in ranked as well.