AgarwaenME

Please do go on. I'm sure your utter lack of actual arguments matters nothing to you.

Ah, I knew it wouldn't take long for the Bad Fallacy Brigade to return.

This pretty much. More unintended consequences. Hell, I'd gladly take minor nerfs to USN DD torps to get back guns that could hit targets at reasonable ranges.

Before the "fallacious argument brigade" comes around to spew more absurd nonsense against MS_Surfaces rather great post, I'll just have some additional pointers. Just for once consider the game state 6-7 months ago. No one gave a toss about high tier DDs while they had pretty much the same capabilities as nowadays. So what changed? DId DDs get amazing buffs? No, they didn't. So what then? Threads JUST LIKE THIS were flooding the forums, and the same sort of attitude thrown against DDs were then targeted towards CVs. So CVs got nerfs upon nerfs heaped onto them. Those members of the BB mafia got told what they did wrong, and how the game meta would be changed if their demands were followed. So... WG did just what they cried for. The result? An incredibly stale high tier gameplay, with games of 6-8 BBs per side lobbing long range shells at eachother and CAs being cannonfodder somewhere inbetween. Then people tried to adapt, and you get a meta where ships that aren't BBs need to either be very stealthy (IJN CAs, all DDs) or have so long range as to be able to fire back without completely being a lone target in front of the line of BBs (KM CAs to some extent, AFT based CLs). This is todays situation. Now, what will the unintended consequences of capping DDs at a restrictive amount? Longer queues for one, which will make the game annoying for many. Also lets to some simple math. 12 ships per side. CVs are capped at 2, but you very rarely even get one per side. So that leaves 10-11. So then we cap DDs to 4 and we're left with 6-10 slots to be filled with BBs and CAs. Will these magicly be filled with underperforming CAs? Or will we just then return to stacks of BBs? Yes, BBs are far more likely. Even if a cap of 4 would be a fairly small reduction (as more than 4 DDs is rare, nevermind cherry picked screenshots by the fallacy brigade) the perception might change enough to change the meta. Hell, the perception from last season of ranked has changed the meta already, as USN DDs are far less the red headed stepchilds in the family of DDs. So basicly, a moderate cap might to little at all, except make games more predictable (which would be in favour of certain people farming WR in divisions), and a low cap will bring back games of long range BB shelling (as you so often see already, no matter the amount of DDs in games). So crying that DDs makes game stale and then asking for a change that will make them far more stale is a self-defeating "argument". Put it like this, in a game with no CVs, then an even distribution (which the game isn't designed to have) would be 4 of each. However the design was for there to be fewer BBs, and far fewer CVs. And while they effectively already made CVs so rare as to make the 2 per side cap defunct, BBs are still much too numerous for that design goal. So the actual fix would be then. To cap BBs. A cap of 3-4 BBs would make it far less needed, or rewarding, to have torp based DDs in large numbers, and leave far more room for CAs to take their role. The amount of BBs (and their long range heavy damage capabilities) in games have forced the current meta, so treat that problem instead of attacking the symptoms.

That's about as right as you are on everything. Ie entirely wrong.

But why would you cap the ship type that's far less capable of dominating games and not also cap the other types?

Cool, so you'd have no problem limiting BBs and CAs to the same amount. At which point you've effectively capped team sizes at 11.

As with so many of your type, you failed on basic facts. But do try again. (and there's supposed to be lots of DDs in games, they and CAs are designed to be the majority population in any game). And for every picture you can muster with "unbalanced" MM for DDs, you can find as many or more with "unbalanced" MM for every other class of ship.

Hilarious, you chose the single t10 CA that can manage really well because it has one trick that lets it work well (a trick already removed from many other CAs, so don't expect it to remain for long). The whole point about the Zao is that it can operate fairly safe around BBs, and that just shows how much that ability is worth. In the end it proves my point. I mean, that argument is just the same as "you're just bad if DDs are any threat to you". And no, what you're saying is "uuh.. I chose to ignore these facts because.. err.. reasons". And you confuse the fact that you're wrong about statistics with other people not understanding them. So nothing has changed there.

If you claim that 1+1=3 behind a silly argument from authority (worse yet one based on nothing), then you (as usual) have nothing objective to say.

No that's true, BBs have WAY MORE effect on gameplay, and their easy dominance over CAs is easily spotted (as in, objectively seen), and is a large part of why people chose to play DDs. DDs does by no objective measure dominate games. The rest is just silly attempts to insult, so not worth my time, and just shows the biased position you're coming from. Here's a free tip, if you can only go for personal attacks, then you lost any reasonable arguments long ago. If you want to have a grown up level of discussion, feel free to reply to this post. P.S When you do nothing but make posts crying about how some ship is having too great effect, and then try to twist that into others crying, then that's the pure definition of hypocrisy.

Ah yes, Mr. "I deny reality when it doesn't suit me"

3 of one type, 4 of another and 5 of the last on one team 4, 2 and 6 on the other Pure hilarity when you have a division of 2 of the most overperforming ships in the game, and crying that others play games that perform less. Would you be here crying that there was a CA infestation if there had been 5 CAs and 4 DDs on your own team. Also, you cry about DDs, and then you division with one...

That CA is far less likely to die from those torps than either of those BBs that are in range of it.

Should be 50% more DDs than BBs (to make up for DD hunting DDs, and how they should be more numerous by default).

Which is entirely different from tripple yamato divisions focus firing ships from 20km away.. no wait, that's in all possible ways far worse.

Thanks for those numbers. Just shows that the ship class that needs a cap per game is indeed BBs. Here's the thing, if you capped BBs, then suddenly it's far more viable to play CAs, and far less moro.. idi.. BBs sailing straight into torps which makes playing torp DDs as viable as it is.

1) Absurd strawman. I'm pointing out that there's no problem having more DDs than BBs in games, while you want to make them nearly as rare as CVs. And again the point is that there's no reason whatsoever to cry about there being more DDs in a game than BBs, nevermind crying that they have similar amounts in a game. 2) As common as BBs that can oneshot CAs with ease. So what? Also being able to actually fire your weapons without being instantly destroyed is OP now? 3) Sorry, but removing threats from the game that particularly affect some ships IS a buff to them, and just as much as removing CVs as the largest threat in a game was a nerf to USN CAs, then forcing a class that is NO WAY is dominating damage done to a tiny population is a nerf to those DDs that primarily hunt other DDs.

That's based on statements by WG, on how they wanted to game to look and play. And that you think there should be a hardcap on DDs lower than the usual amount of BBs in a game is just hilarious. That would force a meta where we have 6-8+ BBs on every team, which in the past has been common at t8+. It's doubly hilarious when you have to consider how many of those DDs use torpedoes as secondary weapons and have hunting DDs as one of their main roles. It's BBs ability to dominate a 15-20km area around them that cause DDs to be the primary counter play to them. And what you're suggesting is just the same as the crying against CVs giving them endless nerfs, and has as little consideration for the long time and unintended consequences as they had.

Now, since BBs are supposed to be rarer than DDs, at what amount would cap cap both of them? 4 DDs, 2 BBs? 5 DDs 3 BBs? maybe.. 2 DDs 1 BB?

* adjusts glasses, puts on pedantic voice* Weeeeeell, technically Arsonist, Firestarter and Witherer makes it three. *turns of pedantic voice, removes glasses as he doesn't actually use any sort of eye correction*

BBs are support ships, not the other way around.

Indeed. It's Witherer who requires 60k fire or flooding damage.

Yes. And don't get me wrong, the MM there is plenty wonky, with two BBs with massive range and speed advantages on the other team. I guess partly to allow for those two divisions (I do wish they'd do things to discourage divisioning with the exact same ships like that).

Do you want to build a troll man?