AgarwaenME

You really do seem to need some basic science understanding. What you actually suggest when denying statistics, is that pretty much all modern medical science simply do not work. Double blind medical trials? Nah, since you can't account for every possible thing, then those cannot work at all. Hell, your own example goes against your own logic, as friction coeffcients very much are an average statistic for the way materials interact, it's an estimate based on collected measurements and not a simple metric (like say speed). So unless you can say for certain that this exact piece of rubber and this exact piece of road will work, then any general data you have on them is useless. Well, in reality it doesn't work that way. What I'm actually saying is that you can use statistics, but you need to check for biases and problems in it. You're just trying to have an excuse to simply ignore all of it. And so what if good players can use them better? And of course, your "good players" excuse is nothing but a blatant "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Stupid semantics, you're demanding they change something to affect a ship in a manner, it's the same bloody thing. But you only back that up with your personal opinion which is contrary to collected stats. Thus it's all but worthless.

Assuming that ARP kongo players, especially those who got it early, is better than average is a very fair assumption. It takes firstly 30 kills, so even if you assume a very high kill rate of 2 per match (so 1 CA per match maybe, and I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here) which means 30 games, then another 5 games in a CV to do part 2, and another 10 matches (again giving you a huge advantage in doubt assuming some guy is using a t10 ship) to finish part 3. That leaves it to 60 games minimum for someone performing incredibly above average. Multiplying that by 3-4 for a lower skilled or casual player means it takes MORE TIME to get the ship and thus they'll be a far lower part of games played in that ship. That combined with the ships being pretty much identical, means what you're doing is compare the performance of those two populations. Hell, the things we see when we see what is identical ships perform differently like that, is evidence of that fact, and not your absurd notion that it shows the stats being useless. ALso, ig And for the last time, getting those absurdly high performing matches is nearly all luck, through detonations, luck in having low skill BB targets, or just random luck due to enemy movement, MM setup etc. That's what gets you huge games, but where some ships are far more likely to have more even performance, and can't as easily luck out (say SN DDs) while others can. That max possible performance is completely irrelevant if you want to balance ships. When you talk about shima's, then you're talking about are those who play better and thus get better games on average which you then can see in those stats you chose to ignore when it doesn't suit you. Better players get better games, and worse players get worse games, that applies to all ships. So that defeats your own argument. Btw, what you're really suggestion is that all statistical observation is unusable, and thus a large part of science itself is. You might want to consider how you're not likely to be smarter than pretty much every scientist in the world...

But the only thing you do is cry, while I do not. This entire thread is about you crying. And again, twisting reality to ignore facts, just so you can pretend your opinion has any value is pure lunacy.

Hm? Shots are so rng that even a perfectly turning person trying to avoid will get hit, and if he's on ranges where that's easy, then so can you easily avoid a lot of his gunfire. And any CA close enough to effectively use AP, will take many times as much back from you. Nor is a 30 sec reload a legitimate gripe when your guns do 3 times the damage (with a lot more penetration) than guns with 13-15 sec reloads. And yes if MULTIPLE opponents focus you, you're on trouble, but then SO EFFING WHAT? A BB can survive getting focused for much longer, and it's harder to focus a ship that you need to get within one-salvo distance of to engage. Don't sail alone. Also it's rather that BBs can way more easily focus other opponents, than any other ship class can do, due to their excessive range advantage in most scenarios, in which case turning is going to do very little for a CA as you just end up exposing your broadside to atleast one of those BBs. Also, the amount of CAs with 10km detection ranges are extremely low as they require a select few ships with a high level captain dedicated to that purpose (and thus leaving out many other skills). And when you do pull out of an engagement in a BB, you can then get a huge amount of hp back. What will that CA/CL that turned out going to do besides being a free kill to the first guy who finds him afterwards? And saying that CAs can just turn and run and not expose broadsides is a ridiculous claim, nor are they immune to BB citadels even when not broadside, while BBs only really are in danger from other BBs when turning like that (and against those you can somewhat rely on their reload timers to pick a time to turn) nor can even DDs turn and run all the time (a large part due to their extreme vulnerability to module damage).

It's rather that #1 Experience awards were changed some while ago to reward fighting caps more, in turn DDs and CAs get more xp compared to just damage done (especially CVs were hit badly by this). Thus a BB in top 3 likely did more damage than anyone not a CV also in the top 3. And #2 If you're really poor, then BBs are a ship you'll do very poorly in, you'll eat torps or citadels because you sail straight, or just be yet another BB who died last having done little since you sat back at an ineffectual range (but as you note, doing that you're very likely to be able to get hits and kills towards the end of that lost match), but if you're just semi competent you'll have a higher average than most others, it's easy to cause damage in a BB, and it's likewise the least skill based ship to keep yourself alive with. The true skill in BB play is knowing where to be and to get there in time.

"most people" as in "I'll make up stuff because that's how I feel like it is". And yes I can, because the way they are "meant" to be played, or rather how you have to play them to be effective, is to use all offensive abilities of your ships, which means being up front spotting enemy DDs, using your guns to fight those (or even other ships) and being as close as possible before firing torps to get better hit rates. That's playing the ships competently. Much in the same way as BBs are "meant" to be played a lot closer than many do play them, trying to get attention to get gunfire onto themselves instead of their team and also be close enough to really make their guns truly effective. Does everyone in both type of ship do that? Of course not, but far more BB players will be found lobbing shells from max range, and why? Because rng allows them to still have 20-30% hit rates at that range (and as damage stats shows, do more damage than DDs do on average, so playing them badly is far more rewarding than playing a DD badly). And yes, SN and USN DDs are way harder to play, so what? (and USN DDs from mid tiers and up can also stealth torp). IJN DDs are still much harder to play than BBs, and harder than most CAs, atleast to true effectiveness, but the point there is that they have other benefits and guess what, they're a COUNTER TO IJN DDs. Which means that just limiting DDs on a team is a simplistic way of handling anything (and of course, the sort of ship that should be limited is BBs, as they're not supposed to be a large part of any team, while CAs and DDs are supposed to be most ships in battles). Also, just saying that more DDs means that torp reloads can be ignored is absurd, it makes absolutely no sense in a gameplay perspective. You might aswell claim that 4 BBs on each team means they have instant reloads, but then BBs can FAR more easily actually focus an enemy ship from far longer distances across the map and over islands, so that would actually sorta make sense. But a claim that would indicate you had ALL enemy DDs in one single spot firing torps one after eachother? Have you seen that many DDs in a single spot ever, and not easily won that match because your other DDs were free to act all over the rest of the map? Or you can just go "ok you have 4 ships attacking you, what sort of scenario where 4 ships are attacking you do you suppose wouldn't be hard?" 4 BBs focusing you, how long do you live? 4 CAs raining HE or AP on you? Well ok, if you're a BB you could be lucky and erase a couple of them before you burn. 4 CVs? Well that would be fun to watch. It's a scenario where you SHOULD normally sink. As for the aim indicator, if you only fire torps across that line, then you are incompetent, period, and if you think people are doing that, then so are you. It's a lead indicator telling you where that ship will be at current heading and speed, and you have to then estimate how and where he'll go in a minute+, it's an absurd far cry away from "point and click here now". And again, torp hit rates shows how much that is needed to even be able to hit with torps at all. Complaining about it is just pure whining.

When did I say it was only about tier 10s? As usual you have to make up strawmen. But even then that would have merit since it's just a huge amount of random people, thus the skill levels will be fairly uniform. It's an amazingly far way away from a population where you've selected for dedication and skill, and it's how normal statistic is done. What you and the other desperate guy is trying to prove here, is that all statistic is unusable. Good luck with that.

You had massively better BBs, and while they had more DDs, two of them were mutsukis. There really is no reason why all of your Nurnbergs wouldn't be able to push those DDs back with the support of those BBs.

Tashkent, or any SN DD. Often fun, but as often frustrating when you can't engage any ship without being fired at by half the enemy team, while being as large a target as most CAs and having modules blow up because a shot landed within half a KM.

Shh, clearly since DM has way more potential dpm than Zao, and once in a blue moon you get to spam AP into every ship around and do 500k damage, and it's just that everyone that plays it are bad that makes it not perform better but that single 500k damage round that some guy made is the norm and should be what you balance the ship around.. or something. Of course, in reality, Zao is better for many reason, mostly due to being able to land shots at ranges where you can manouver enough to live through BBs rolling their dice on their death touch spells against, and because you can somewhat effectively stealth fire with it, where the DM is one big visible "kill me first or I burn you up" sign. The final irony, is that he's complaining about the lack of CVs, when it's the EXACT SAME SORT of BIASED BULLPOO COUNTERFACTUAL WHINING that has caused them to be nearly extinct. I can just picture him here in 6 months time, after DDs having been nerfed so hard as to be entirely unable to combat BBs, whining how he can't play any CA/CL because there's 8 BBs on every team (something we have actually seen already).

Thing is, either he's stupid, or he's a troll. Stupid people can educate themselves, trolls remains trolls.

Again, absurdly wrong. Stats tells plenty about ships if you don't cherry pick examples where no one expects them to. Conserning the arp ships, and again, DO TRY TO EFFING READ, that's an example of IDENTICAL ships but DIFFERENT populations. When you compare ships on the server (or multi server) scale, then you compare the IDENTICAL population but DIFFERENT ships. So again, your excuse simply do not work. And again, even if that would be true, all that tells us is that you have an opinion, so why would we give a poo about your opinion? Your claims that your "experience" says anything is likewise entirely worthless as an actual argument. At best you're just someone to ignore, at worst you're twisting reality to force an idea you know is false. And trying to pretend that one off max battles is what you'd expect to see and should be considered the norm for ships is utterly stupid. Some shimakaze captain getting absurdly lucky and detonating 3 yam-tomatoes and sinking 5 other ships from max to zero has NOTHING to do with his skill, but a mix of ridiculous luck and completely inept enemies. Max potential damage has got little to do with actual damage done by ships (which is easily proven by how much damage ships actually do). If there were anything at all to your final ridiculous line, it would tell us that DDs needs MASSIVE buffs in the higher tier, while BBs needs massive nerfs, because "ideally, and you know if you don't do that it's only your fault" (what utter trite bullpoo, "the emperor has no clothes" is not an argument) they have the largest potential damage per match.

Stupid ignorant people are stupid and ignorant. Start fixing your ignorance by learning how different DD trees are very different indeed. Then go on to learning how long the reload timers are, and how the lead indicator for a torpedo that travels for minutes is nothing like a lead indicator for shells traveling 10 seconds.

Occams razor. Everyone who plays badly are getting beaten by cheaters, and everyone who plays well are cheaters. or A lot of people play badly, or at least not as well as their personal bias makes them believe. And that bias, combined with too poor game knowledge to understand how and why they got sunk, makes them blame cheating.

Utter bullpoo. The arp kongo v kongo is an example of having two different populations, the others stats are NOT. To make the comparison you're trying to (dishonestly) make, you'd need to know that players that predominately play DDs are worse players than those playing other classes, something which have no merit whatsoever. It's a line of .. reasoning (if one even can call it that) you're pulling out of thin air and against all reason to protect your own bias. It's ever so typical, "stats are important and tells everything if that suits me, and if not I'll invent a scenario where they still don't say I'm wrong, in which case I feel that my opinion suddenly can be used as a fact, or better yet I'll go full retard and invent a scenario where they somehow say the exact opposite of what they say". If stats says nothing, then you have no basis to tell which ships do "really well" or not, and thus this entire thread is entirely an opinion piece with nothing backing it up, and thus entirely worthless.

If you actually turn and change speed then any aimbot will not make enemies hit you more often. Your issue is being too predictable and then blaming everything but yourself.

We're at the point where the entire point of the game seems to be to have everyone not in a BB play in a fashion so BBs can do whatever the hell they like. CVs will now be nothing more then DD hunters, as they can't approach anywhere close to a blob of BBs, and a single USN TB squad (or two IJN) will get focused and killed, leaving bombs as the only remaining damage source, which they now have nerfed against anything but DDs and CAs. CVs are no longer a counter to BBs, they're a counter to DDs only, and the only CAs that will remain somewhat playable post 0.5.3 are those that are halfway between CAs and BBs anyways, but then those CAs will get hit far harder by fewer repair parties too.

sub 1% of total damage done in games is "strong enough".

Why? Because you don't. You're lying either because you can't count, or because you intentionally want to trashtalk and blame others.

Confirmation bias

Because currently the only way to fight BBs in ranked is to play a DD. The issue is that BBs are so horribly dominating both, CAs and CVs are both rare and weak against the AAA of many BBs. The reality is that it's BBs being the actual OP class of ships, so people who want to win have to adapt to that.

Unreliable in your mind maybe, but then if so then it's just as large a chance that the MK is better than the stats shows, so any buff would make it horribly OP. Do you have every other t8 CA? (you do love to attack people based on what ships they own, do you realise how hypocritical that is when you hide your own stats?) If you don't, how is your opinion on it relatively to other ships worth anything? We have some numbers, you can argue all you want about their validity, but any which way you put it, they're far more reliable than the biased opinion on someone who threw a ton of cash on a premium and is desperate for it to have been worth it. Opinion based on facts is worth far more than opinion based on personal feelings.

Wow, you actually managed to understand what I said in my first post, so what's your actual argument then? Why did you even argue against me then as all you did was argue against that point? Also, comparing those different populations is utter trite make believe. It's as stupid as calling every BB imbecile player a "straight sailing, tunnel visioning, crying because he can't win everything automaticly just because he picked a BB - idiot" or any other banal moronic generalization you can make up on the spot. You will actually find that most players plays most of the ship types, and even more so for those with a substantial amount of games. Nor are you even necessarily going to play best in the ship type you like playing the most. Basicly, you're just yet another person to find some excuse to ignore stats when they don't suit you so you can inject personal opinion instead as if the lack of any hard facts have any sort of hair brained idea you had any validity.

Again, who's saying it's overperforming? Ah that's it.. noone. What's said is that it does not appear to be underperforming, and giving it a massive buff is absolutely unneeded unless you also give a similar buff to every other t8 CA. Also, again, any sort of stats even those not 100% reliable is still far better than your opinion.