Exocet6951

I still see some ships, you can probably still add more UI elements to cover that up All teasing aside, the only time you should be concerned about results not matching up to ribbon is when you get a damage number that's simply incoherent with the ribbons given, ie: 1 overpen dealing twice the overpen damage, or more problematically (RIP DDs), 1 overpen dealing 2 regular pen's worth of damage.

The devs are displeased with it, and judging by the cruiser population and the way CAs are played at high tier, the players aren't too happy with it either. And if class is irrelevat, why make a fit abut a proposal to make it a BB? Isn't that rather hypocritical? Literally never gave a tier. Now you're just confirming that you're projecting arguments onto me and despite claiming that actual class is irrelevant since it's so fluid, you have a clear favorite and don't want it to be a BB. 9 inch belt, 12 inch guns, 30k t standard displacement granting her some 70k HP Yea boi, good cruiser material there. Perfectly on par with 6 inch belts, 8 inch guns cruisers with 50k hp. Just for reference, the Moskva has 25% less armor, with citadel plating rather than a belt + inner citadel system making her extraordinarily fragile and she's already pushing the limits on the term "cruiser" You want something with 50% more alpha damage on bigger guns that can overmatch 19mm plating (ie superstructure), 25% more armor with a much better armor scheme on a smaller target. Using the Kron and Stalingrad as an excuse is not advisable, considering one is considered stupidly good WIP, and the other was just released and already doing extremely well. As in, laughably better than other T9s. And before you use the excuse "but only good players have her", you can actually filter by percentile. Turns out, the top 50,25,10 and 5% players are doing laughably better (6-10% WR and 10-30k damage more) with the Kron then the next best T9. And you want something to be smaller, more agile with probably more concealment and effectively just as tanky (unless you want to cross the T tactic), expecting it to be balanced. Well, no. Turns out it's not.

Again, think of what happens when you get exactly what you want, and a ship with 11km concealment with accurate 9x9k alpha comes along and literally nukes your DD out of the water. The Kron has the damned decency of maneuvering like a dog so it being at shorter range is actually dangerous, something the short and fat Alaska will not suffer from. The real question is why you are so die hard about it being a cruiser when it's clearly not a cruiser, but a dedicated cruiser killer of very large size and even different ship class. History? Some stats could be buffed from a BB perspective (like slightly better BB accuracy) to make it more appealing and have an actual niche, rather than just having a 6th BB in a battle with cruiser accuracy and effectively BB armor, unless you think people just fight crossing the T rather than angles.

That's ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to the game. The game has limited slots per battle for BBs, the tankiest ships in the game that can literally cripple if not one-shoot cruisers and DDs in a single salvo. Making those battlecruisers large cruisers CAs ingame essentially means having 6 BBs in a match. Yeah that's amazing, the entire forum displeased about having too many BBs already, but hey, there's a popular ship (that's not Russian *cough* personal bias *cough*) that's essentially a weakly (*completely mitigated given the game's gameplay and mechanics) armored BB, and suddenly it's red carpet and welcome party. If it's armored like a lower tier battleship, has guns of a lower tier battleship, has the maneuverability of a lower tier battleship, then it' a lower tier battleship, not a (completely made up and never again used) "large cruiser" at high tier, even if it doesn't make as much sense from a historical perspective. Again for emphasis: History should never trump gameplay and balance. Ever. If the only problems with the Alaska being a lower tier BB is AA and historical logic/accuracy, then artificially nerf the AA mount's DPS and forget about the accuracy. You're already using pretty pink US BBs to shoot at never-built pretty green RN CLs while a never built German BB the size of a small country watches. Historical accuracy went out the window ages ago.

Then enjoy those tasty tasty 9x9k alpha AP from a concealed Alaska with cruiser accuracy. Unless it has bad accuracy, which in that case, enjoy a pointless ship that hits too little and fires not often enough. Because those are your choices: OP or garbage. Guess which one WG is going to bank on if they implement it ? Yeah fun. Looking forward to having more BBs masquerading as CAs, that totally won't get old. Sometimes I legit think some people just cannot see the ingame implications of what they're suggesting, but rather buckle down on their opinion based on personal preference of a specific ship. Balance comes before history and logic. Always. Better to have a lower tier BB with buffed BB stats to counterbalance weaknesses than a CA with (maybe) nerfs just to not completely eclipse other non-specialist cruisers. And again, please don't come up with that silly "It won't be OP in CW, relax". Randoms aren't CW. You don't have to worry about 5 BBs per side on top on BB-like CAs on top of that in CW. The "it can't overmatch so it won't be dangerous" is utter horsecrap and you know it.

TL;DR: Friends ingame are now illegal Ban divisions lul

Remove repair ships, give all ships in operations a small repair kit. EZ PZ

That's the point of view I've been advocating for the past few years. Alaska T9 or T10 just takes a massive steaming poop all over random battles. You can claim overmatch and lack of HE DPM all you want, but when 9 shells with 9k alpha from an invisible ship that just fired are slamming into you, overmatch or DPM won't really matter. Those ships belong as lower tier BB, artificially nerfing AA if need be. Trying to apply CW logic to why the Alaska wouldn't be top pick as a T10 cruiser doesn't matter in the slightest in random battles.

Again, Ranked is not competitive. Its Random with less people and better rewards. You make the crucial mistake of misunderstanding the word "competitive" Competitive doesn't necessarily mean top tier teams in an organized tournament. Competitive means that there's a competition. You know where a competition occurs? When two teams and brought together to play each other for a reward. If that doesn't register as competition in your mind, I don't know what will. So no, Random battle will never be a sandbox mode where you are free to do anything. If you truly think that's the case, try torpedo'ing allies and going afk all the time. Those pink and orange colors are there to remind you that WG does not believe you are allowed to do anything you like.

It's a phenomenon I've been observing since I've started playing WoT back in 2011, and my theory is that it has to do with the tier system. Essentially, when you're in a T9 in an average match meeting T10, you don't feel as important of a target compared to a T10, and the enemy doesn't either, so you tend to put less pressure on yourself, and the enemy tends to put less pressure on you. It's just a theory, but I can attest that despite being an objectively worse vehicle, I always felt more at ease in a T10 match in an E50 than an E50M (*) , and I feel more at ease in a T10 match in a Neptune than a Mino. (*) For those who don't play WoT, those two tanks are essentially identical, one is T9 and the other T10, using the T9's gold ammo as standard ammo an being a tad more agile. I first noted my theory on those two tanks, thanks to the nigh-identical nature of both, and my noted serenity playing the T9 (to this day my most played tank) and not feeling that with the T10 despite performing better with it.

Alright, easy test: does Random battle mode have defined goals, with set MM rules and rewards for being on the victorious team? Let's run through the checklist: yes, yes and yes. Random battles are thus not a sandbox free for all fun mode, but an actual competitive mode which pits 24 random people split into 2 teams fighting for victory. I'm really not sure why having very specific rules, goals and victory conditions+rewards with 23 other people in this match makes people think "this is a fun mode where anything goes, so I'm entitled to screw over 11 people out of rewards just for my specific entertainment"

Actually it's not. This isn't a pick-up football match with buddies. It's an organized match with 12 players who don't know each other per side having to play within said rules. If you go to a football field, see people playing, ask to join then start having a giggle picking up the ball, you'll be asked to leave, because when around strangers, you play by the rules. And that's exactly the point: you're around strangers, so you play by the rules. If you want to play the game in a way that actively screws over 11 other people, you are griefing 11 people, and essentially telling the world and demanding that your fun be held to a higher estime than 11 other people's. A problem when those 11 players think the same. Random can be chaotic, but they also have to be played with the rules of the game in mind, IE: play your ship to the best of your ability and try to win. A DD going around the map , spamming 4km torpedoes at targets 12km away isn't playing a ship to the best of your ability and trying to win. A BB at the back of the map sniping to avoid getting damage in order to survive as long as possible to farm XP A CV repeatedly launching waves of planes at a Des Moines joined by a Minotaur isn't playing the ship to the best of your ability and trying to win. A CL with no torpedoes rushing forward, showing broadside to 3 enemy BBs an dying in 2 minutes flat isn't playing the ship to the best of your ability and trying to win. There is a WORLD of difference between playing for fun even if it's not optimal, and actually sabotaging your team of 11 strangers online because you can't be arsed to have 15 minutes of basic sportsmanship. That is categorically false. Randoms operates within the very same basic rule set of CW: you play in order to try to win. There are clear goals to achieve and deny the opposite team. It is NOT a mindless "do what yo want lol" sandbox.

Isn't it already a free for all? I'm already avoiding "allied" torpedoes and fighting people trying to push me out of my own smoke...

Boris is also very much self-aware. Skybuck was just....Skybuck. Involuntary memelord extraordinaire.

"Missions that are harder" > today's mission literally just being top 3 XP in your team in a battle you win. You could argue that more stringent requirements in terms of amount of missions required to get the ship is a bit...too much... But the missions themselves being harder? Give me a break.

Boosts and flags are multiplicative though, so 35 knots compared to 36 knots ends up being a 2-3 knot difference in the end. Not insignificant.

While I don't necessarily disagree that the current stats make them look...unappealing in major (and unchangeable) aspects such as shell velocity and ship speed, I think it's slightly unfair to compare other ships to the Fletcher, then be disappointed when they're not as good, something I've done as well earlier. The Fletcher is just that damn good and well rounded. They won't be able to match the almost perfect speed+gun+torpedo+stealth combo. The poor RN DDs are just in the unfortunate position of having to deal with unfavorable real world characteristics (for the game, but very useful IRL), combined with lackluster torpedoes. Looking forward to seeing how WG navigates around that issue, because as of now, they look completely inflexible, albeit at least good at that one thing they could do.

And of the 1000-ish subs the Germans pumped out, only 250 survived/weren't captured, so I wouldn't exactly be waving around u-boots in a conversation about effectiveness.

... I mean.... Create a new account, get an Atlanta, plenty of flags to EZ PZ level the captain, and it should be doable. Bonus points for calling yourself "AtlantaIsMyWaifu" ... [checking nickname registry] HAH! It's possible ! The closest thing to that nickname is someone calling himself "AtlantaIsCancer", which to be fair is somewhat true. I do feel like a tumor in people's buttholes when I play it

And you'll notice that in that, the only time anyone directly reacted to German ships are the French and their rather poor navy in the 20's and early 30's, then later still when they realized that the Germans might just have bigger planned. Which pretty much proves my point. Spee started an arms race because it was an odd, yet potent ship and France had nothing both big and modern. But at no time did the US and the UK scramble to pump out something against the Scharnhorst, content with going along their merry plans, for better or worse. Lastly, I believe I recall France wanted to lay down the Alsace in 1941, but knowing them, it would either have been canceled or been finished with a missing turret in 1944 So yeah, not sure why people hold the Kriegsmarine to such high regards. It's essentially famous for two lucky shots then pumping out submarines with mind-blowingly high attrition.

The RN feared them because they were big and had guns. It's also better propaganda to call the things that sunk your crowning jewels and which you subsequently sunk to be the most dangerous thing ever. German ships had an outdated armor scheme that made them vulnerable. France might have build the Dunkerques to fight the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst but that's only because the only other things they had at the time were pre wwi dreads. All in all, they're massively overhyped, being 10 years too late to be called revolutionary. Remember, by the time the Bismarck was laid down, KVGs were being built, the Italians had Littorios, the Americans were trying to cheese in as much displacement as possible on SoDaks and the French were planning on laying down Alsace. Compare those with Bismarck. The later doesn't follow naval treaties and is still beat in terms of armor and number of guns, and potency of guns (for the most part)

Sure, but it seems rather inflexible with either hydro or speed boost, and torpedoes lacking a tad in damage and speed And with only 1.somethingK hp more than the Fletcher, it's a hard sell. Not a bad one, don't get me wrong there's potential to be a rather nasty DD brawler with that DPM, smoke and maneuverability. But a hard sell nonetheless. That being said, I am comparing it to the Fletcher, so it's rather unfair of me.

So I found the player you looked at. Turns out he has a 72% solo WR in over 500 battles, with a 87.5% solo WR over the course of the past 72 battles. So I checked his clan. Average WR? 65%, with a median roughly around 65% as well Lowest WR? 57% Interesting... Let's look at another great player, and see if we can't find a pattern. Another player has a solo WR of 82% over 3k battles, and 86% over 332 battles in 3 man div. His clan? Average WR of 67% In my glorious conclusion, I will therefore note that top 0.1% players who are crushingly influential in a battle will win 12-20% more often when playing with players just as good, taking up team slots that would have been taken by an on average 49.5% average WR player. In other news, water is wet and 1-3 pro athletes joining a game of schoolyard football will tend to make their team more often.

34knot top speed on the T9 Jutland... Dear god what are the Brits feeding those Bofors?

Here are some chill pills. Take 2 before each meal, and one if you start being mad for no reason. Max 70 a day. Doctor's orders.