Beta Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles



About AgarwaenME

  1. Hey sure. If you weren't bothering to hurt the enemy team this won't change anything. AMAZINGLY CLEVER! WHY DID NOONE THINK OF THAT??? And you could always lay out smoke as you wanted before, and many did, so it's not adding anything.
  2. How about a different exception? Why not just make BBs not get hidden by smoke when they fire their guns? Or even "anything with larger calibre than the ship that laid smoke will be spotted if firing from that smoke"? An exception that doesn't sh** and pi** all over ships that WG designed themselves to rely on it?
  3. And that's the issue. WG is playing nerf-whack-a-mole to everything players does to survive and be effective in a 50%+ BB meta instead of addressing that BB meta.
  4. I'll await you demanding huge CV and DD buffs then because you know.. endless hypocrisy But something tells me I'll need to wait for the heat death of the universe
  5. Actually what we said was that it would push even more people away from anything not a BB. Just as we said when they removed stealth fire. And we were completely correct. Also, smoke allows ships that otherwise just gets deleted to actually fight up front, what you're asking for is a FAR MORE STALE LONG RANGE META.
  6. 50% BBs and rising. Devs say they need to change this and they continue to implement changes that just makes it easier and more profitable to play BBs while handing out free high tier BBs on top of it. So saying they have no idea what they're doing? Quite justified.
  7. So much this. Hell I actually went "wth, same range?" since I'd absolutely never even considered increasing the mino's gun range and never compared their theoretical max ranges, since the DM more or less have to cap out gun range since it so often can't get into cover close enough to enemies (or get BBs to push and keep enemy attention) without just getting deleted, and have to fall back on semi worthless HE spam from 17km+, and the mino would be near worthless at anything close to it's regular max range and relied on cover, stealth and smoke to get into trouble and out of it.
  8. Sorry, but the DM, which can fire HE which actually does something at such ranges, also has better ballistics for that HE. Nor does the DM have "that much worse" agility (indeed it has better rudder shift) while also being the 2nd lowest CA in survivability at t10. So going "it might compete with second worst" isn't really much to brag about. And trying to twist this into "if we remove some of their defensive atributes the players that play it will suddently git gud and actually live longer" is quite .. imaginative. Indeed even if that somehow got true it would be offset by the ship getting far worse overall results besides living longer.
  9. But these ships have far better ballistics and range, so while you might be just as good at out-turning (or even better) you have to do so from far shorter ranges. Currently these ships don't dominate in survivability at all (with the exception of the MK), so by that alone it's not a justified change.
  10. Because smoke has no cooldown, lasts forever and has no counter. Oh wait... you do really love throwing around tired old claims and being wrong don't you.
  11. How will removed many ships ability to push and have a way to escape make anything "fluid". Have you not played at all for the last year? Have you not noticed the continuing increase in BB numbers and how this reduces the game to static long range battles? And again, BBs have gotten both direct and indirect nerfs one after another for two years, and the result is exactly as we said it would be. It's not even really about what's more or less "OP", but that one ship class out of 4 now constitutes ~half of every battle. Beyond that, balancing the game for "competitive" just to stop a meta there is inherently stupid. Competitive players and teams will ALWAYS min-max what they do and this just shifts one meta to a different one. The only thing they can do to competitive modes is to cap ship types and/or consumables one can take to such battles. And then you still just get a "we take the best X and best Y out of them and ignore the other ships that could do it".
  12. Then I apologize for misreading it as overpenned. However the excuse still doesn't stand. Just because "the rest gets citadelled anyways" doesn't excuse this nerf.
  13. What utter nonsense. You're really attempting to say that "every cruiser except moskva can never be citadelled by BBs", that's just.. I have no words.
  14. Yes, because you remember when they balanced BBs after stealth fire nerf, torp nerfs, CV nerfs, fire nerfs.... No wait.. that was never.
  15. They also advertised stealth fire as an advantage for several ships who lost that. So I'm sure they'll use this as an excuse. But then overall this change is such utter retardedness that it's more or less what we should be expecting now. People in this thread cry about a "smoke" meta, when in fact it's "the only defence against the BB meta is smoke" situation. The ships this will hurt most are those ships who already have very low survival rates. This is akin to halving or removing repair party from BBs (or halving the effect of their armour), but we can't have BBabies crying too much so lets head on to 75% BB population!