Elgerino

The reason it tickles me is because you've chosen the least important aspect of manoeuvrability to focus on and an aspect that the exaggeration of differences between would create no real difference in the way the game is played. What really makes a destroyer harder to hit? What really makes it capable of sneaking in close? What really allows it to move between islands effortlessly? What really defines the playstyle of each ship? It ain't the straight line speed, that's a minor factor. But to acknowledge this, you'd need to acknowledge that the different ships have different playstyles in the first place so I feel like I'm wasting my breath.

In that case, Battleships are the most screwed because they have to fight Clevelands and Des Moines from Myogi up. Anyway, it was like this in WOT CBT as well, 4 tier spread either way just because the testing numbers aren't sufficient for it to be other-wise. When the times comes, it will be changed.

The Kuma's tier equivalent is the Myogi. Enough said really. On the topic of dodging and incompetence, I will simply tell you that you don't think it be like it is, but it do.

Most people are obvious but they don't need to be obvious. If they're obvious, is that the game or the player at fault? Make the choice to not be obvious. In no fair game would volume fire not destroy you quickly. Focus fire is going to be one of the most important tactics to learn and it will always be effective. That's why I said if you're targeted first you're unlucky, you wouldn't survive anyway no matter what reasonable changes you push for.

I've already explained why this isn't the case and it's only going to be even less true as time goes on and more ship lines are introduced. If you're playing every ship almost exactly the same that would explain your performance. Put this way your misunderstanding makes more sense to me, but a misunderstanding still. Like with WOT, most of the variance comes from the different lines not within the same tree. Some might have autoloaders and some not, some maybe have different gun stats, some have different quirks. It's the same in this game, gun stats are important and each has it's specific advantages. Fuso for example excels at filling the air with rounds making it a good choice against Cruisers, Nagato on the other hand is far better at getting punishing citadel hits on other BB's thanks to penetration and better armour for better protection against opposing ships. Amagi is a glass cannon. The difference is, this game has 6 months worth of test stage development. You compare it to WOT, but WOT has had not far off 5 years adding all this new crap in. In it's CBT, there was only 8 lines and only the heavy tank lines were any good. Mediums were trash (Especially germans), tank destroyers trash, artillery only went up to tier 5. It was FAR more random than this game is, guns used to be highly inaccurate back then and module damage was completely RNG based. You've been spoilt if you think WoWs should be any better at this point, but at least on the damage model it actually is. Not as shallow as that attempt to liken the games. What your posts in this thread tell me is you don't understand the depth of either game and you've no interest in it, you're just calling it how you see it to give your opinion the weight of analysis. If I was to say why you prefer WOT, I'd say you like it because it has the variance and the polish this game doesn't have. It has nothing to do with game mechanics you can't even bring yourself to properly understand. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. I agree, this game is not as varied or polished and that gives it less re-playability, that's to be expected this early on of course. But let's not pretend you have a nuanced disagreement with the way the game plays, nothing you've said shows me you understand the game correctly. You think armour is pointless, there's no nuance between the ships, all ships are about the same speed (That one especially tickles me.) and that damage numbers don't matter. All are wrong.

It's not the leading that's the problem, aiming in this game is easy. The problem is the travel time. Specifically, shell travel time vs rudder shift time, a matchup that goes in the cruisers favour till about 12-13km. Especially for the phoenix with it's tiny profile and the rudder shift time north side of warp 9.5 for a cruiser. But don't push it too far, or else you'll turn into some lizard thing and procreate with your helmsmen. Skill can't make your rounds travel faster and because of that you have to guess where they're going to be when they dodge, not where they're going the moment you fire and that vastly reduces your damage against CA's especially. You can force misses all day erry day and you can choose to deny that if you want, but you won't be a good cruiser player until you accept it and stop pretending that when you're spotted BB's are going to laser you cross-map, because as a primary BB/CA player now and during alpha, I can tell you for a fact that BB's can't do that. It'll get easier once you get CA's, they have more range than the BB has effective range against cruisers.

Can't see it, but I expected as much. Already people are on the forum whining about the AA buff and how their planes are useless now, but things don't appear to be any different at all. I still can't swat planes before they do their damage, in any case.

Can we stop acting like getting spotted means certain death? If you get destroyed first then that's unlucky, but if you stay with the pack then you're just one target of many. BB's have the range but hitting cruisers at BB max range is so unlikely it's not worth even trying unless they find a cruiser who doesn't zig zag at all, so show some patience. What exactly do you do on the other maps? Hide behind rocks until all the BB's are dead? Or do you use your insane speed and agility to basically never get hit by a BB at range? It should be the latter, whether it's ocean or islands maps.

Speaking as someone playing cruisers at the moment, I haven't noticed any AA buff.

Yeah this is my experience too.

Difference being you don't need to taste food many times to understand that it's god awful. Game mechanics are more abstract and require a lot of experience and thought. Therefore criticism based on such little experience of a map is essentially useless.

Do we even get exp for shooting down planes with AA yet at all? I don't feel like we do.

Alpha testers and supertesters have plenty of negative opinions on the game. Everything you talked about in your post has been brought up plenty of times and the devs have not addressed it, so that's hardly the testers fault is it? Four posters have said they find the game boring and either didn't explain why or displayed a fundamental misunderstanding about the game and described aspects they found tedious that could easily be fixed had they tried to play better and found the nuances in the gameplay. You're not good at WOT until you learn weakspots, positioning and how to use your armour. It's no different with this game. Every class has it's role, every class is effective (Besides IJN Cruisers, which devs are ignoring tester criticism on), every class has it's counter role and counter tactics and there is more to the game than simply predictive aiming. But the people complaining about the game being boring in this thread don't seem to realise the above and that's why there's friction here. It's like someone saying ''All you do in WOT is shoot at eachother, it's so boring, why would anyone play anything other than Heavy Tanks? All the other roles are useless.''

Well exactly. I was going to respond to him by pointing out that the important parts of the ship are housed inside the citadel, most of the rest of the inner ship is unimportant. But someone already made that point and he responded by simply saying a ship hit by a shell that size would always take serious damage without any real reasoning along side it, so he doesn't seem like the sort of person to listen.

Feel free to throw up the pretence of a sensitive and vulnerable snowflake who finds people who disagree with him offensive as a convenient excuse to dismiss their points.

Yes it does, especially if there is carriers in the game. That are unfounded. You don't even understand how much agency is possible. A penguin might as well speculate about nuclear physics. Ah, I forgot the earlier US cruisers have torpedoes. But from Tier 6 up, they don't and Japs do. Japs from tier 6 up are also floating pre-wrecks, besides Mogami. BB AA is a joke. It doesn't start doing serious damage until the planes get within 3km. Planes are within three kilometres very briefly as they attack, hence why it's a joke. Carriers only get better against battleships as they progress, torp damage goes up but the BB's ability to resist torps remains static. Yamato can soak them up better but it can't really dodge them so it gets hit my a lot more in the end and whilst Yamato gets a lot of AA guns it's the same story as the rest, only good within 3km. Destroyers are supposed to be easy meat for Cruisers. Cruisers role is basically as a counter to everything, with BB's trumping them in firepower. But RNG the way it is, Cruisers are just generally the best ships because their gun performance is solid and predictable. A couple of CA can melt a BB at 16km with brutal efficiency, even. SSSIIIIGGGHHH. The AP gun damage is the number you get when you hit the correct spot, AKA the citadel. So how does that mean the damage stat is insignificant? Which guns are best is also complicated by the armour. Ugh. The Citadel is armoured, it's an extra layer of armour within the ship. Like a castle within the hull to protect systems. US Cruisers have a well armoured citadel, making it harder for Japanese guns to punch through. In fact, every US CA besides Pensacola has a citadel immunity zone at mid range against Japanese guns. The reverse is not true, because Japanese citadels are paper by comparison. It is significant, in that it's bloody significant in gun battles between ships of similar displacement. Armour is the reason the ''correct range'' as you put it is important. What do you think stops you penetrating New Orleans at medium range? Do you think some star trek style force field system is stopping the shells half way through? Or is it perhaps the fact that the ship is well armoured enough that shells that come in at an angle run out of energy before they can penetrate the citadel? Spoiler alert: It's the latter. This also makes the calibre important, because whilst the game doesn't list the value there are specific penetration rates for each size of shell and obviously the 8'' are more likely to punch through than the 6'' are. Compare this to Japanese ships which have no immunity zone, it becomes clear that armour is making a huge difference. What you should have taken away from that was that two of your points were contradictory. Unless you play with a Japanese cruiser you can protect your citadel whilst you fight in the same way you for example try to force a bounce so you can push in WOT. You just need the know how. There are certain positions and ranges you can take against BB's where being one shot is about as likely as an ammo rack in WOT.

The problem is if nearly everything you state as a reason for your point of view is wrong then is it really constructive? Here's the thing. This forum is almost exclusively filled with threads that are nothing more than whining and some of us are getting very sick of it. It's difficult to separate you from the whiners if your analysis is so far off the mark. It simply becomes a ''I find this boring and CBT shouldn't be boring.'' thread if you can't properly explain what's wrong with the game.

Are you seriously trying to suggest there's things that won't take half your HP in WOT? Anyway, in WOT you can't dodge shells. In this game you can. If you lose half your HP to a BB it's more your fault than it is his boon. Except BB's who sit back and snipe are literally useless, as opposed to just feeling that way. You may feel useless as a cruiser or a CV, but you're certainly more capable than BB's who snipe at long range. Why haven't you realised this though? I would guess it's because you still haven't ascended to a level of gameplay where you think tactically. If you do, you'll bore less easily.

Except most of us agree it gets boring, don't we? You have a nasty habit of characterising people incorrectly Fominator. Personally I'm positioning myself against OP's complaints on the grounds that his analysis is completely wrong and I wonder if he'd find it as boring if he tried to play it on a higher level. The game lacks depth at this point of course but what depth there is he hasn't bothered exploring.

The inflated sense of entitlement is real. Why is it relevant whether you can recommend the game or not? This is testing phase which you even acknowledge yourself. Part of you surely knows your complaints are daft, whether you feel like the game is in a closed beta state or not is neither here nor there. ''Closed beta'' describes the admittance and testing process not the level of refinement in the game so it's a totally useless commentary to say the game isn't good enough for CBT, all it shows is you've got the lines between your roles as a tester and a consumer mixed up.

Measuring by straight line speed, sure. By any other measure? Can't agree. This makes me wonder whether you've tested the game enough. Cruisers with torpedoes are by far the weakest class of ship in the game right now and carriers are the most important ship to have. Destroyers aren't great but significantly weaker than the others? Not at all. Well, all the Tier 6 up cruisers are about as accurate as eachother so the damage stat on the gun certainly is important. I've included both points here about guns and armour, because in the case of Japs vs US Cruisers, US armour is nullifying Jap fire-rate by resisting more shells, making US Cruisers vastly superior. You might not realise this because your only CA is Pensacola, which is not great on the armour side of things and inferior to Mogami. But other-wise, reality goes completely contrary to your claim that RoF and Range are the most important factors and that armour doesn't mean anything. Also, on the armour point, try telling me the armour difference between Amagi and Fuso/Nagato/Yamato means nothing. Battlecruisers in this game are obviously battlecruisers because A: They'll go thirty knots and frustrate your aim and B: When you get good effect you tend to two salvo them. Except when you sail away from someone you vastly decrease their ability to damage you and even more so if they're forced to give chase. In a group fight, disengaging is child's play too. You need to be suicidally close to not be able to escape a fight or prolong your death for a significant amount of time. Can't disagree with that. Capture objective game modes are generally trash for slow paced games, better off with a deathmatch style system that totals up damage in the case of a draw to decide the victor. Save the objectives for clan wars. At first I was like, preach it. Game modes and ship balance are directly contradictory to eachother in this game, neither supports the other. But then you started on about slowboating BB's and cruisers being sniped when they can't respond. Firstly, either ships are basically as fast as each other or Cruisers are fast enough to leave BB's behind and abandon their role. Pick one. One. Secondly, there's no reason for cruisers to actually get hit at ranges they can't respond. BB's have a very hard time hitting cruisers who are mindful of incoming fire, but even the assumption that Cruisers are going to be the target at these sorts of ranges when you're escorting a BB is totally erroneous. No BB worth his salt is going to ignore a larger, twenty times more easy to hit target at 15+km and one that can actually shoot back. There is a lot of RNG here you're right, but it's much like how in WOT you can't predict how well the enemy is going to aim or position or react. What's possible if your opponent is a dunce is different to what's possible if your opponent knows his crap. So you should be used to the risk/reward/how much will RNG [edited]me calculation by now. It's much the same in this game. There's more RNG mixed in but you can expect from a good player much more effect if he closes to 15km and times his turns in or away from you when you're about to fire, then to broadside to return fire. It means he understands the game, it means if you give him your broadside to shoot you're dead meat. And dodging...you do dodge right? And positioning for AAA fire. And positioning to protect from stealth DD's. And positioning to cap the objectives. And positioning to protect the objectives. And positioning for effective ranges. And positioning to limit the opposing teams effective fire, via controlling sight lines and making yourself a less viable target by keeping yourself angled away or towards ships you don't want to engage. I don't understand the blind chess analogy. It's as if you believe that most of the time you don't know where the enemy team is. This isn't my experience of the game. I disagree with your opinions on the game mechanics. I agree that it gets boring, that's because we're very early in the game and there's very little flavour. WOT CBT was exactly the same, after all.

That's not how it works, I don't believe. The further you are away, the more the rounds plunge until eventually it's practically a straight shot on the deck, no amount of armour can protect you from that. You lose penetration at that range but the angle of the attack more than compensates for the reduction in velocity. The displacement required to mount the armour to bounce a plunging 16'' AP shell is astronomically high. Even Yamato could only manage 200-226mm, bare in mind that's about as effectively armoured as a King Tiger tank and you can penetrate a King Tiger with far smaller weapons. The armour is best utilised at medium ranges in the game and I assume in the real thing too, where you maximise the angle the rounds come in at, increasing the resistance the armour puts up or increasing the chance of a bounce. At very close and very far ranges, you might as well not have armour.

Over-penetration wasn't really a thing in naval combat though, because naval AP shells aren't meant to just punch a hole, they had explosive filler. Less than HE, but the advantage to AP was that once it hit a surface thick enough it would start a fuse which would create a delayed explosion, this is why citadel hits are so huge because AP has the power to punch through the outer armour and the citadel armour where everything important is housed and explode there, where-as HE has more explosive power but can only blow up the outer shell. So AP doesn't cause more damage, it just hits more critical areas of the ship. The citadel damage mechanic simulates this. What's more, AP gets tiny damage numbers often not because it over-penetrates, which is what a lot of people believe for some reason, but because it explodes in an unimportant area of the ship. Against a destroyer, maybe there wouldn't be enough resistance for the shell but against cruisers, there's no way you're not triggering an AP detonation if your shell hits the hull.

It's just a fact that accuracy is unreliable at long range. I'm confident enough in my own abilities to say so, but it's also blatantly obvious because it's the nature of a system that gives you 40k damage in one instance, decent damage numbers in another 3 instances and bugger all damage in 6 instances when you aim the same way ten times. It's RNG and it's the reason correct tactics in this game is to close range. I'm not a perfect human being but it's not as if aiming in this game is super hard, either. The people you're talking about there are the dunces, the guys who don't learn nor strive to improve until it just happens on it's own through repetition. I'm not one of those people, my game has adapted to avoid long range combat as much as possible because I know it's a lottery. If I close range I can use superior knowledge and ability to defeat a target and I normally do. Again, I should reiterate I don't really mind having to close range. But it's often impossible to do that because one side insists on fighting at 20km, that's the sort of situation I want better accuracy for.

Yes, as I've said before the game doesn't necessarily need it and it could be counter-productive opposed to forcing BB's to close range as with the current meta, which works reasonably well. But it's certainly an option.