AgarwaenME

That's actually part of the issue yes, and that's why shimas became the meta to handle that. Not that the same brigade that filled the forums with CV hate, and then DD hate (and hate of any sort of torpedoes) will get how shortsighted they are. Thus I predict "omg nerf zao/ibuki/HE" threads to become the norm in the next couple months.

Not too be too obvious, but yes.. a convenient excuse sure, not the real cause. I mean, you both get to trash talk another class of ships (and demand one of your counters gets nerfed), while defending your passive play style. It's a win-win for that "argument". In reality, the cause of all those shimas, were all the passive BBs, not the other way around. And now we get a situation where 2-3 BBs can stay marginally together, and as long as they do a minimum of manouvering (though they prefer to just sit still with bow toward the enemy) or have someone scout out a few km, they can safely sit at max range, farming damage but not really doing much to win (beyond being lucky and winning by no-skill RNG shots)

That's not unheard of at all. Nor does it have to be something done actively, as with 5-7.2km AAA blobs around ships, being just slightly grouped easily gets a squad into the range of 2-3 blobs, and force you to take longer routes around (giving the other CV time to intercept, and keeping your amount of actual attacks per game much lower). To only have your own AAA, you'd have to be one of the last ships left, or be a solo rambo dumbass. As others have said, if a lone BB isn't a viable target, ie, if a BB played at a similar skill level isn't heavily disfavoured, then what is a CV going to do in a game where they're just slightly grouped? Does two CAs sailing somewhat close make a BBs turrets spontaneously explode if he fires? No, so why would you think that's fair to CVs?

Oh no, if a CV spends most of the match attacking a single ship sailing alone of a type it's supposed to be the hardcounter to, and gets help from at least one more ship, then that ship might sink? UNHEARD OFF!!!

Did you just call yourself naive? Well.. ok then. I'm not going to correct you if that's your honest opinion about yourself. And again, it's you trying to twist that around to anyone using that expression, when no one in fact ever did. You're just desperately grasping for that victimhood.

Clearly you have some reading comprehension issues. But keep pretending I say something I didn't, as it's far easier to use strawmen than actual arguments. Also, keep making up excuses for everyone else, "but he doesn't count!!".. lmao right.

Yep, there's that hypocrisy and self victimisation. You can excuse your own any which way (except based on factual data, I mean, DDs doing less damage, winning less and dying more clearly deserves nerfs.... somehow) but whenever anyone speaks back then "oh no, you're calling me mean things!!" Even going as far as pretending I called you something, when I did not. Also, the entire point of "BB mafia" was to make light of a small group of people who kept filling this forum with the same inane "nerf this or that" threads (back in the day, mostly about CVs, and as such that term was made up to be akin to the "bomber" of "fighter" mafia of some airforces, where their ego about their own particular brand made them take stupid choices just because of their own bloated feeling of self importance). While it has taken on a life for itself since then, it's amazing that those who spawned it suddenly feels that it in particular is hurtful, when "sky cancer" and "DD [expletive deleted]" wasn't. Then you finish the post by personally attacking me in a very funky, and hypocritical manner. I mean, it's perfectly ok for you to go entirely personal of course, but if someone should do that to you? "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!"

While I appreciate you realising that I'm actually objective, or at least trying my best, unlike.. "some", there are some things that you have to be so amazingly dishonest to claim isn't there, that I really can't be bothered doing that job for you. Hell, in the timespan between him making that silly claim and now, there's already appeared a new "nerf CVs" post...

So much wrong.

Or rather, it's aimed at those that create memes like "torpedo soup" or "sky cancer" and who's been filling this forum with such whining since beta, and that's shown that no nerfs to other ships will ever be enough. It's amazingly hypocritical to play the victim card in a situation like that of course, but that won't stop you I bet.

So you can't differ between calling your post ludicrous and actual insults? If you want to read some of those posts, just visit the BB sub forum where they've been moved lately. But it's hilariously dishonest to claim that this forum haven't been filled with posts asking for nerfs to CVs, DDs, torpedoes, stealth firing, high explosive and fire, more than any other game mechanics.

Sarcasm is the only thing such a ludicrous post deserves.

I'd suggest glasses or contacts.

Not desiring to repeat your silly strawmen (as in pretending you hate camping more than I do, and basicly most of the other things you said). I'll just say this, you really need to look at how games actually evolve. Just to note, if BBs does not close the distance, then.. SO WHAT? If they chose the losing move, why should the game change to appease them?

Except that's just your bias shining through. To get to the ranges where the ships that can actually do it can land hits, you still needs to go towards the enemy. Unlike a Yamato that can sit with 99% impunity lobbing shells from 20km+, a Zao has to get to ranges where it's a sitting duck if spotted (and it will be spotted, sure that ship your aiming at might not be in range, but there's all possible chances that some DD inbetween will). If somehow as your strawman "argument" claims, you could sit and fire from stealth for 20 minutes against BBs, then that's because THOSE BBs WERE THE ONES ACTUALLY CAMPING. If anything, a stealth firing CA is one of the few things (including DDs) that can force BBs to actually go on the offensive. Without the ability to stealth fire (or approach and chose when to engage as fitting the target, ie it's gun positions etc) then you're left with max range engagements against heavier targets. This makes for MORE camping, not less. If you think firing from 15-16km against BBs is "camping", then you're amazingly deluded. Nor again, are CAs really specced to "always" be stealth firing. It's an option it's nice to have, and which is one of the few things that makes many otherwise weak ships actually playable as more than just another ship that can only fight its own class of ships. To even go "I've seen so many games with cruiser captains in the back" just tells me you've not been watching much at all, as at most tiers CAs simply lack the range to do so. Nor is that a "cruiser" thing, it's a player thing. And the same people you see in CAs straddling their max range, is the same sort you see in BBs straddling theirs (and often using extra range mods to be amazingly ineffective doing so).

This is 100% wrong. Because stealth actually allowed you to get closer. This means that many CAs will actually be forced to actually stay at longer ranges, not shorter. These ships could always (and would) be going in closer against suitable targets. But now to stand a chance to stay in the battle for a decent amount of time, will need to stay at ranges where they can still stay undetected, or where manouvering to avoid gunfire is more plausible. If anything, this ALLOWS more passive play by those ships that usually were targets for this.

Because you cherry pick situations to fit your agenda.

Heh, I didn't even look at the year... Ah well that explains why one guy was talking about missing armour mechanics

1) Shells have their highest speed just as they leave the barrel. So no, unless you somehow have your target inside your own barrel then they do not gain (and actually lose) speed at any step beyond that. 2) If up against a well angled BB (or a well angled CA if you yourself is in a CA), then HE is an option (unless you play a yamato) 3) No, that's about right for close up engagements (though for ships with hulls that go high above the waterline, say an Omaha, then you can just aim somewhat between the waterline and the top of the hull), though in some cases there aren't citadels just under the mid section, but there's always citadels under turrets.

Atleast 3 of the very same ship. You don't want to face tripple stealth Zao's either. But ye, a large part of the issue with MM is that ship types aren't balanced. To counter a Yamato you need 2+ torp DDs or another Yamato. Most t10 CAs just can't control area like a t10 BB does. Even the mighty Zao, which can overall do massive damage, can't just erase you from 20km, so doesn't put pressure on another team in any way like it.

Thing is, you inflate your own skill to where every win is due to you, and every loss is due to bad MM.

quoted post removed Good thing this isn't an MMO then. Nor are your numbers correct. Nor is that how "increasing" or "decreasing" numbers work, as numbers have actually been pretty damn stable, and show no signs of this game "dying". But then you'd have no idea as you're just yet another clueless, arrogant kid who thought you'd be immortal in this game just by picking one ship over another.

Congratulations. Through the entirety of CBT, OBT and since then, this is the most ridiculous and stupid "argument" I've seen yet.

Yes, a lot of new, bad, whiny and/or biased players think like that. And they're in most cases from 99% wrong to 99.9% wrong. Especially those buying their way up tiers before learning the basics. Or that farms their way up tiers in coop, and then gets surprised that their coop tactics doesn't work against people.

It's hilarious that you should cry about others having a condescending tone with that sig of yours... You're basicly whining that you get treated as you treat others. And, if you don't "do any calculations" (I mean, seriously, it's 2nd grade math) then why are you making claims about what's factual?