Exocet6951

Quite random, but there's nothing more infuriating as a DD in ranked than seeing a 9 plane DB heading your way, and knowing that the only way to be safe from it is it slow down in order to smoke.If your ship is too fast (*cough* Kiev), you might as well just kiss 10k hp away. CVs are such a mess right now...

This is why we can't have nice things.

Heh? The BF-109 was designed roughly at the same time as the Spit (1936-1937), and the FW190 was only put into production by the time the BoB ended, and the Sowrdfish was a good pair of years older. Not that the Spit's performance weren't noteworthy, but to say that was older and still stomped 109s is factually wrong on both counts. 109s remained very worthy rivals to the Spits all the way up to the last 109Ks, with the Griffon-engine Spits gradually getting the advantage.

Because war is well known for its laws about fairplay and balance. I bet Hitler sent many in-game reports about unfair play.

Sounds like someone got duped into downloading something not from WG's domains.

IJN SALT COLLECTOR A fitting name for a Kamikaze/Fujin

I think that's called a St Louis

I think that description is awful either way. Her "highly efficient" AA showed a performance that's even more embarassing than the Bismarck getting hit by a torpedo dropped by an interwar wood and canvas biplane.

I never said that it was more maneuverable, just that it was decent. Average is what I would say. And that's just with the hardstats available to us. I'm sure a comparative test would show interesting results in terms of time to turn, and actual turning speed. Armor is also on par with the Yamato. You can argue about a few extra 10mm here and there, but with ultimately, it's all very similar,which is especially problematic for a AB-XY turret arrangement, since you're too tempted to go broadside to use those back turrets. As for the penetration, this thread : http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/59528-armor-penetration-curves/ claims that the Montana is better by a good 25mm of penetration at 0m than the German 406, and by 75mm at 0m than the 420s A 25mm lead that you find at pretty much all ranges other than maybe at 21km+, where the 420s manage to catch up to the Montana's 406s in penetration. That's not taking into account the plunging, which allows the Montana to do some nice normal pens. So I maintain that the Montana isn't so ridiculously unbalanced as everyone makes it out to be, as if it were unarmored, too slow and with bad guns. I maintain that it suffers from one problem : a citadel that's too easy to hit. Make that go away, and the ship will more often be able to use all its turrets and will survive longer.

To be fair the Montana is decently maneuverable, with high penetration guns with those nice plunging super heavy AP, the best AA by far, and decent armor. The only reason it's really failing compared to the two others is that ridiculous citadel that's simply too high above the waterline. That's the thing preventing good players from angling enough to use all four turrets, and punishing bad players for angling too much and being at high risk of getting citpenned. And while the Yamato has the same problem, the Montana can't rely on those lol overmatch guns. I'm certain that if the Montana had a lower citadel, it would easily match the Currywurst in terms of average damage and WR, rather than trailing behind.

I don't see why people keep repeating that the Nurnberg and Hipper are bad... Nurnberg is fragile, sure, but she has good maneuverability and a great range. With two turrets at the back, she can juke and avoid just about any ship chasing after her. Hipper? As long as you put the right module to deal with the slow rudder, it's as maneuverable as the other cruisers, has AA almost on par with the Kutuzov, and epic hydro, some of the best armor a cruiser can ask for, and tier10-grade guns. The only thing the Hindenburg's guns do is increase the RoF and range. That's extremely potent. She's perhaps not the best ship to deal with the current style of gameplay on the EU server, but to claim she's bad is just plain wrong.

You're teh one who called anyone who presents some basic human psychological emotions as mentally challenged. There's someone generalizing here alright, and that person is you. If you don't want to feel challenged, I will point you towards co-op. Don't change everything from everyone else because there's one thing you don't like. You're telling me not to "force every Average Joe" to comply, when in fact, you're the one advocating something else. You're the one trying to force something on me. That something is worse queue times.

By your logic, EVERY SINGLE underdog story EVER RECORDED in human history should not give any normal human being some form of satisfaction. David and Goliath, Rocky vs Ivan Drago, the mother****ing Mighty Ducks, none those should not give us a lick of satisfaction. You are right and humanity has been wrong for over 4000 years, of course. By the way, the way you managed to completely miss the point about having a +4 tier advantage and a bad player still playing poorly is so masterly done, that I seriously think you should envision a career in politics.

I know, right? Going through a gauntlet forges your gameplay. I still remember +/-4 MM for heavy tanks in WoT. Hellish, but damnit if I didn't learn how to pick my fights, bait, flank and use HE properly. People asking for almost no MM difference just want the game handed to them on a silver platter, devoid of any challenge or critical thinking.

I ****ing wish WG could pay me to knock sense into people.Though I'd probably get fired for all the things I say that goes against WG, like me saying that I'm almost positive that the BB-heavy meta is willful situation created by WG's marketing team. I don't think you realize just how boring a game can be if you don't give anyone any challenge. I'd say give that some critical thought, but we all know that you won't be able to swing that.

CVs have always been a very particular case, and I strongly feel as if there is tweaking to be done for tier9 and 10 CVs, which feels more like handing someone a clubbing stick after having made them grind through hell. Arguably the Shokaku top tier can really devastate the enemy team, but those are just individual ship problems, not a major disfunctionment of a metagame mechanic like MM. Thanks, I truly think that a game needs to challenge you at times in order to be fun.And sometimes, you'll fail those challenges. Other times, you'll be able to take your poor little Aoba, completely outclassed by every Bismarck, NC, Kutuzov and Bensons in the match, and get it just in the right position to lay the hurt down on everyone. It's satisfying, even if you're not top xp at the end of it.

In one of the last battles I was in, I actually saw a Des Moines running away from a Benson 8km away from it. No one else around, as I was the one being focused down. You could have a +/-0 MM with a +4MM for truly potato player so they could play massively overtiered ships to gain an enormous advantage, and those players could still play like **** and cower behind everything. MM has little to do with a potato's way of playing. He'll play the same if he's top tier, bottom tier, if there are 5 DDs or none, 2 CVs or none...The common potato is pre-programmed to play one single way, and there's absolutely nothing you can do to change that, so how about we stop butchering every single aspect of the game in order to try to make the lowest denominator's life a bit easier at the expense of everyone else, when we all know that it won't make a lick of difference ? I enjoy the +/-2 MM, it gives me satisfaction when I'm bottom tier and win or hold out successfully against top tier ships, and an excuse when I get stomped to the ground by those sameships.

Identifying the common potato is easy. The common potato doesn't read the chat The common potato doesn't talk in the chat The common potato doesn't look at the minimap The common potato doesn't have a care in the world if he's alone, and will machinally head off to his favorite cap/area of the map If you identify someone with at least 2 symptoms, you can just go ahead and ignore him, going where you please. No matter what class of ship you are playing, you're not here to be a crutch/meatshield for the common potato.

Don't like the forum, you can always leave. See why your argument is, at the very best, terrible?

True, but there are still a few "bounces" as they have some 37-38mm deck, and the turrets/AA guns like to om nom nom HE shells. I only found that skill useful against Amagis and Izumos, who now just eat salvo after salvo of crushing HE

Oh yeah, I got that, but I meant in general :p But no worries, it was mostly a rhetorical question. It is idiotic that a report in a match in which you don't do anything wrong is stupid. Getting reported for when you rage? Fair game. You live by the sword, you risk getting cut. But this thing? Stupid.

Just how much did you rage? I'm finding myself losing my temper roughly one in two matches*, and I'm still completely clean! Even have +5 karma, which I seriously don't understand how. *latest rage: two Scharnhorst inexplicably unable to go faster than 20knots, prefering to use mighty German accuracy.

Did... Did WG remove delete a post of mine talking about a 25 year old MSDos naval warfare game?