Sander93

You call this fine? It's the same [edited] MM that World of Tanks had. Instead of dividing tiers evenly across teams the MM gives one team more high tiers. Seriously how hard can it be to give both teams one tier VII CV and then give one team the remaining tier V?

I get around 30% accuracy in all my battleships (40% in cruisers), but it's at 25% for the New Mexico. Don't know what they did to those guns but I couldn't even broadside the moon if I wanted to.

The US BB tree might be better, but tiers 4-7 are definitely not more fun. 20 knots top speed and abysmal accuracy across all tiers gets boring pretty quickly. I'm currently at the New Mexico, winning most matches (77%wr) but I'm getting really tired of perfectly aimed salvos being screwed over by accuracy RNG and by the incredibly low cruise speed. It's as if you're fighting in slow motion. I get so bored of it I'm going happily pay 6500 gold to skip the Colorado.

AA on that tier is useless either way, I'd stick with the B hull.

Did you hit the 5 minute mark while waiting for a match? I've heard that the MM comes up with these weird low-player matches when you stay in queue too long. After 2-3 minutes just leave the queue and start over to avoid it.

This is something that came to mind recently. While I hope to avoid the discussion of the effectiveness CV strike mechanics there is one thing that has been bothering me. We've had countless nerfs and buffs to CV damage performance and we've seen new features that were removed again: so far most attempts of WG to balance CV's have failed. Perhaps we should approach it from a different angle, from a fresh perspective. In World of Tanks, the artillery class kind of resembled a CV. They both do damage over distance without direct line of sight. They both have a very high damage potential. However, the thing that kind of balanced the artillery in WoT is the fact that the artillery (SPG) had to rely on teammates to spot targets. An SPG could not fight its own war. That balance is missing in Warships. Carrier aircraft have such a large spotting range that they can spot enemies for themselves. This makes a CV a 'rambo' machine, even though other aspects of the game try so hard to encourage teamwork (i.e: cruisers defending battleships with AA). CV aircraft can roam the map with impunity and attack whichever target is most favorable, targets that are defenseless. What if we changed this? What if we reduced aircraft spotting range to 1-3km? Without being able to spot for their own carriers could no longer attack the best targets, but they would have to attack whatever was spotted by their team. When carrier's team starts to lose it can no longer hunt the other team's survivors. A carrier would no longer be able to prevent the enemy from capturing the base when he is the last survivor. It would also stop the CV rushing or 'sniping' at the beginning of a match. By the way, by doing this other nerfs could be undone again, like the CA/BB catapult aircraft having a panic effect on CV planes. In short: CV keep their damage potential versus spotted targets, but they can no longer play their own little game. They'll have to rely on friendlies spotting the enemy ships for them, like everyone else. Let's discuss it.

If you think the best way to play battleships is camping at max range you are horribly, horribly mistaken.

I fail to see your comparison to World of Tanks, battleships do not compare well because in order to shoot at targets they have to put themselves within spotting- and firing range of the enemy. (Do mind that with SPG I'm referring to artillery, not tank destroyers). They do kind of resemble TDs actually. This is the one aspect that I'm comparing with: SPGs in WoT and CVs in WoWS can both hit targets without exposing themselves to direct fire / LOS. I never said SPGs are equal to CVs, I only wanted to state that their damage output mechanics are similar and what WoT had done to balance that. I know low spotting range might not be realistic but we don't play this game for realism over gameplay.

Well, keep the ideas coming. I just want to see if we can come up with a different approach because nerfing the planes' strike potential doesn't work. Nerfing them like this just takes away the fun (like IJN torp spread) for CV players. These ideas can be combined, because low spotting range would at least prevent a CV that is last remaining in the team from destroying the other team with impunity before they can get to him, for example.

It allows people who buy premium ships to gain a lot of advantage over regular players (extra credit income, captain training, free xp, and with this even accelerated training) and I don't know if WG wants to go that far. Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the people paying (a lot) for this game so I'm not complaining about it. Just stating things. I'd like to see it as well but I doubt WG will implement it or that it has a high priority if they do.

God please no, Wargaming and spotting mechanics do not go hand in hand very well.

People keep mentioning this. You do know that in World of Tanks accelerated crew training did not actually give much extra crew XP, don't you? All it really did was 'even out' uneven experience distribution among the crew by giving the least experienced member more XP than the rest of the crew. WoT crew training guide Since we don't have a crew anymore, but rather one single captain, there is no place for an option like this? If you want a straight up bonus that would kinda lean towards Pay 2 Win.

This has been a problem since the beginning of World of Tanks. It has been addressed by players ever since and in the end it was said that it's peoples' own responsibility to make properly tiered platoons and that the number of so called trollplatoons was so low it was not worth it to take the trouble to implement a system to prevent it. In other words: WG doesn't give a crap.

Don't think it has to be a citadel hit. I often deal 10.000 with the guy shouting bull's eye without getting a citadel ribbon.

The Super Pershing was broken, its armor wasn't modeled properly and it was eating up shells that should easily penetrate it (it could stop Jagdpanzer E-100 shells no problemo). They simply fixed that.

Don't count in it, WG has been very reluctant to change premium vehicles in WoT. They will definitely not nerf them unless they have a really good reason.

Although I agree accuracy is pretty bad on low tiers, I don't have any problems with battleships' overall performance. You just gotta learn where to aim exactly and everything you shoot at goes down in a jiffy.

Possibly, but the point is that they were not nerfed despite what the OP claims.

What are you talking about? The Atago is great. They got removed from the shop because WG doesn't want all the new people to instantly hop into tier 7-8 ships without learning the game in lower tiers first.

Only tier 9 and tier 10 cruisers get the HP repair ability. Your Atago is tier 8 so it doesn't have it.

Thanks for the laugh.

Maybe it's because I only used it for one or two rounds, but I found it highly confusing when aiming at targets sailing in a certain angle. I can't remember what exactly, I think it was when an enemy is heading towards you at a 45 degree angle. It would be nice to have the option to switch view modes.

If you're solely basing this on the information Sharana just delivered, then you misinterpreted the developer opinion. The fact that they want to change it eventually means it is NOT working as they intended, but they don't consider it a high enough priority to fix it right away. I also suggest you go look up the definition of exploit. I'm not using the word to try to degrade people, I'm only using it to describe the situation. I'm not connecting my use of the word with negativity towards players.

So you're saying War Thunder isn't a viable game? Because it is. But even in a semi-simulator game such as War Thunder the developers recognized that permanent module damage isn't fun, so they rightfully decided that everything will always continue working but it will be less effective (a knocked out engine can be partially repaired but it will run at reduced capacity). That's what I'm suggesting: a lightly damaged turret can be fixed to full operational status with the repair kit (or by waiting 20 seconds) just like it is now. However I would opt for heavy damage that can be partly repaired but will leave the damaged turret with penalties such as reduced turret rotation or reduced reload time, instead of completely destroying the turret.

Well I personally still think it's bad sportsmanship, but I wasn't blaming players anyway. I'm calling it an exploit because that's what it is, not to pick on the players using it. If I said anything that led you to believe otherwise I'll have to excuse myself for bad phrasing. Nice to know the devs don't care, but I suppose it was to be expected.