Elgerino

You don't understand. The cruisers can't push, if they push they essentially become an easily destroyed lemming train. I've played one game today (not exactly excited to play it seeing as I tested it extensively on the test server and wasn't impressed) and that is exactly what happened, our Sims capped and they sent three cruisers in. They delayed the cap by hitting a few times but before they got into effective range they moved into my New Mexico's deadly range against cruisers, 14 and lower kilometres. I can leave what happened next up to the imagination, but spoiler alert, we won on cap points. Cruisers can be aggressive and often they should be aggressive, but the times for that need to be carefully judged. You have to wait for favourable opportunities because other-wise you die fast. Charging into the effective range of six enemy ships so you can destroy a single DD is suicide in a normal game and the same thing is true in ranked. Any ships you send after an opposing DD in the cap points you will certainly lose. Then what? The only ships you can trust to this task are DD's, more importantly US DD's. Hence, early DD battles decide who gets the cap points and ultimately, nine times out of ten, who wins.

It's adorable that you think the devs care about our feedback.

Agreed. We're going to start seeing a lot of US DD's queueing up eventually and only once the causal link between them and victory is established will the devs even acknowledge something is wrong.

Except spotting a DD is not the same as destroying it. There's this little thing called smoke and another little thing called effective range. For DD's, most ships need to be pretty close to hit the target, close enough they're throwing their ships away to the enemy who needn't have been so suicidally aggressive and DD's can frustrate your spotting quite easily. The chances of you destroying a DD before they cap is extremely small and you're going to lose so many ships in the process that even if you manage it against all odds, you're not in a position to win the game anyway. This isn't a problem in normal games, but in Ranked the cap points tick up and end the game so quickly it's damned near insurmountable.

That doesn't matter at all. If you can't stop DD's capping immediately your roll amounts to nought but two things, jack and crap.

Because that's not what normal games are about. Ranked battles as they are take a minor issue with the game (DD balance and its over-suitability to cap gametypes versus other ships) and compounds the problem in orders of magnitude. The lemming trains can't even stop DD's capping. By the time they've been detected, they've already capped and you can't de-cap because you're under constant fire. The cap points end the game far faster than killing enemy ships, leaving the game decided by DD's in the first few minutes.

No you're right, ''Ranked'' battles should totally come down to a cap charging lemming train cluster [edited]in order to counter DD capping strength. That's totally where the competition in WoWs gameplay is at.

CV's are all but totally obsolete. The game is decided by DD's in the first few minutes of the game. The rest is just fluff.

Yeah, just magically annihilate the DD's.

Except OP has a point and the people deriding him like a bunch of smart arses don't know what they're talking about.

No problem with this in theory, but it leads to battles basically being decided by destroyers and it forces teams to be overly aggressive, ironically doing a lot to neuter the skills of teamwork, positioning and long range combat. It's not just that you can't get away with scraping the side of the map, it's that you can't even get away with fighting at medium range. But in reality it doesn't matter, whichever team has the most cap-minded DD players will win nine times out of ten whatever you do.

Oh I see, the fire chance of the shell is multiplied by the ship resistance. After reading it I had somehow come to the conclusion that there was two separate rolls, one for the fire chance of the shell and one for the fire chance of the hull itself. Rereading it I don't know where I got that from.

When I played it on the test server, the games weren't decided by Clevelands. They were decided by DD's because the gametype design is idiotic.

So the calculation you used initially is totally wrong. The fire chance reductions affect soft stats in the background, not specifically the shells fire chance, correct me if I'm wrong. The true order of events would be 12% to start fire, if true, roll for hull vulnerability to fire with captain skills modifier, (For arguments sake .75 - .12 = 63% chance of fire for example). So it's 12% chance gated by another 63% roll, depending on ship type and possibly tier. In this case you're right, the two percent increase isn't going to make a huge difference and it's just arbitrary and stupid enough to be a more believable than diminishing returns to ensure no 0% of fire.

I knew there was diminishing returns, but I always assumed the extra couple of percentage points led to a dramatic increase in chance of fire either way. What's that calculation you made based on? It seems to assume you're reducing the opposing fire chance by a percentage, rather than minusing the chance of fire by total reduction. Did the devs say that's how it works at some point?

Cleveland also outranges Pensacola dramatically when they have the 20% range skill for four points and most Clevelands beyond a certain point will have that. Pensacola is formidable too though, no doubt about that. Bear in mind also that the Cleveland, whilst having more HE shells will not translate to more chances of fire. The chance of fire on the 152mm is 12% and it's quite simple to get 12% fire chance reduction. The Pensacola has ten guns versus the Clevelands twelve, but the 8'' are 14% fire chance instead. I'd wager the Pensacola is going to set a lot more fires as any BB player worth his bones is going to have that basic 12% fire reduction.

wat? 4 trolls right here.

The word is Never.

In any case, 12km isn't long range for BB's. 12km is infact the coveted easy cruiser one shot range.

That's not what I said. I said the discourse has been annihilated, many posters now rather than discussing and debating, create endless threads and shout from ignorant positions. Matchmaking conspiracy this, DD's exploiting spotting bug that, OP this, UP that, I know best x, cheaters everywhere y. Sick of seeing it. How saintly do you expect me to be to just sit by and accept this crap with nodding enthusiasm? My sweet summer child, if you think that's abuse then you really are a sheltered organism. What I said was restrained. Here's some pointers for him. Think. Actually think. Consider for a moment that everything in the Universe might not be, in fact, intuitive to your vastly superior intelligence. That you may have to play the game a little bit before you understand it. And for you, consider for a moment that treating him as if he's a special snowflake who can do no wrong might not actually help, that berating him and making him feel bad utilises one of our most powerful evolutionary advantages, learning from negative experiences. Everyone covets victory, but losing holds all the lessons, after all. Well, that's a stretch. You say ''therefore'' as if everything you've just said leads on to the natural conclusion that I lack self awareness and that I did the same thing as OP. But you described a situation where I was needlessly rude, not ignorant, wrong and conceited like OP. Do better.

Yes it is. His attitude and our problem with it isn't so much the game but being wholly ignorant, the same ignorance that's utterly annihilating discourse on this forum. The ''It's just a game!'' argument is so vacuous it's barely even worth answering. The answers weren't stupid, they were rude. So close to being a clever response, but contextually nonsensical. Not to be conceited but I'm fairly sure my self awareness levels are high, perhaps you'd like to actually demonstrate otherwise rather than being a contradictory, snarky hypocrite? Though I'd rather this ended here because whilst I attack the merit and the substance of an idea, you jump on the moral high-donkey and preach uselessly. Not conducive to an actual debate.

Firstly, this community is just like WOT. Secondly, when he achieves self awareness then and only then will he have earned respect. Till then, stupid questions get the appropriate response. Treating everyone with respect and politeness just teaches them that intelligence and self awareness aren't required. Just tell me I'm wrong, we'll get all starship troopers History and Moral Philosophy class up in here.

Play other games for a thousand years and you still won't be able to tell what's what in a new game with twelve matches under your belt. It's like sky diving for the first time with a parachute, assuming a bungee is going to stop you hitting the ground because you've bungee jumped for twenty years. If you treat this game like it's WOT or any other game, like the sky dive, you're just going to make a crimson crater. And in any bloody case, you can fire without being spotted in WOT too. Why is this concept alien?

I wish people would play for five bloody minutes before throwing around accusations as if they know the first thing about the game.

And I turn the Aoba into an unstoppable killing machine. *drops mic*