AgarwaenME

Thing is, the way he stated it, is if it's common to get 10k damage+ 1-3 fires, when that's the only thing to actually be absurdly far from the truth. Also, and again do try to read, the data provided shows that it's not underperforming compared to other ships of its type and tier, and any data is worth more than some guys opinion that a huge buff is warranted, and that's the entire point made in the OP.

Firstly, read the actual OP and understand how you're wrong about both ships performance. And 10k damage per salvo with 1-3 fires at 18k? Don't expect to be taken serious while making absurd claims like that. Then you make claims about what the ship is "supposed to be" apparently entirely bulled out of your posterior because that's needed as an argument. (also, you need to read up on what skirmishing is, it's what USN and SN DDs does in this game, CA/CLs more or less cannot do that period.)

Many true things in that. The real problem is how many people, like the OP here, quotes stats when it suits them (often cherrypicking), and ignores it when it doesn't, or even go as far as excuse their class doing better while ignoring the same about other (ie, BBs fans being completely fine doing twice the damage of CAs, but complaining when CVs does 10% more than them). Much like "realism" have been used as an excuse to ask for nerfs or buffs, but then they ignore any "realism" counterarguments.

But then that completely invalidates your original post in this thread. If you can't rely on any stats, then no balancing can be done. Your claims then become nothing more than one guys opinion, so why care at all about what you think? The example about the arp kongo vs normal kongo just shows that samples drawn from DIFFERENT populations (ie, "people having done the arp missions quickly" and "everyone playing the IJN BB tree") can't be used to compare those ships, as all it does is compare those populations against eachother. It's like comparing "above average players" performance to "everyone" and go "omg look stats are unreliable". Hell, I've yet to play the IJN BB tree post CBT (aside a couple games in kawachi to get into CVs before I just used free xp), so I can't be part of both of those groups. However, comparing BBs to DDs means you sample nearly the entire population of players in the game, and while you'll see some skewing due to what people tend to find initially appealing (ie BBs) and even more due to some premiums, it's really two incomparable examples, as one limits populations by skill and dedication, and the other by taste (ie what ship types do they play the most).

Continue with your hypocrisy, and continue to ignore actual points, continue to just throw out random stuff. I'm sure reality contorts itself as it tries to enter your brain to make your idea of it seem correct. And now suddenly there's no "special stats" for the arp as you've previously claimed. So all this shows is that stats are unreliable, which is nothing new except when people like you refer to them as incredibly important.... I mean, like how you out of the blue can say that IJN DDs should have better stats if not for the players in them. So can you actually say what your actual idea is? Are the ARP ships given better "hidden" stats? Or are they merely showing that better players gets better results, and that more dedicated players will on average also be better players, thus the more and better you play, the earlier you get the ship and thus you'd both expect, and that's what we actually see, the arp ships (and especially the kongo) to have better stats. Thing is, when you point towards the fairly decently sized amounts of battles in it as statisticly relevant, then you also ignore the point above, that you're not sampling the same players. And your "math problem" was wrong, but keep pretending. You stated 10%, it's rather a lot more, and even more if you add YOUR argument that you'll be more effective past grinding through it. P.S I know this might come as a shock to you, but I'll admit on being wrong on kongo range. yes, it's actually possible to admit being wrong and not just ignore when you are, instead opting for personal attacks. As it is, that just shows how player skill is even more important.

Because, and this might come as a shock to you, you still meet them in battle. If anything, firing guns at them tells you even more about their survivability than merely being a target. Also, not having bought it means you're not as extremely biased about how you want it to behave. And this thread isn't about it being op, but that it already is more than good enough and doesn't need to get massive buffs while similar ships take 30-40% nerfs. The OP is merely pointing out those pretty obvious facts.

And a difference you're just pretending is there.

And it seems like you don't know every cruiser not the MK.

"not designed to overperform, but something has been done to make they perform better" do try to atleast read what you yourself write. And yes, a semi upgraded kongo is going to be better than a stock kongo. Thing is, you just argue in circles. Your argument was that a fresh captain would be worse than a stock ship, and I showed you how not only are you going to catch up to any t5 "normally played" (ie, a captain not also played on a premium, or who's sat at a tier accruing skills over a longer time) is barely if at all going to be better (depending on if it's used from t1 or t4, and if it's retrained for credits or gold) but that you'll get a decent enough captain well before you're out of stock as a kongo. And that a stock kongo is far more of a problem than even having a 1 skillpoint captain (arp captains start with 1). Somehow you manage to attack part of my counter argument as if that was the most important bit. Your "assumptions" (rather amusing as you accuse others of assuming) are just that, assumptions. You're "assuming" that people who gets that ship for the first time, including some who gets it as their first t5, would play as well as someone having finished that mission fairly quickly in t5+ ships, and that only the drawbacks of the stock ship (mostly really low range) are the only thing keeping it back. Also, your silly math actually breaks your own "10% to grind stock" easily. If anything it only makes it even worse as "assuming" you'll play better after means that the part past stock will go even quicker (and thus people playing through it fully upgraded will be done with higher average xp and thus contribute less to overall stats).

Mogami can be citadelled from any angle, there's no real difference between those ships in that regard.

But is "not being op" a reason to massively buff it, while nerfing comparable ships to the ground?

I explained exactly where you were wrong in regards to captain xp (ie you're amazingly wrong in assuming that someone merely grinding through it would have a large advantage if not actually be disadvantaged), and the comparative xp required to turn the kongo from the turd it starts as into a good ship. If you're unable to address those points, instead of just calling them "guesswork" (from some person who's proposing that the ships for some messed up reason are designed to overperform for no real intelligent reason, but then conspiracy nuts don't need their ideas to be based on reason) then clearly you're just yet another hypocrite on this forum. Lets see if you can manage some simple maths though. How many % out of 47000 is 19000? Your first attempt was "10%", now try to get a tiny bit closer.

You got sunk by a better player playing a higher tier ship built to counter yours as you failed to react both in time and in the correct way. So effing what?

Even back in CBT I considered the gold to retrain and respecc captains as part of the cost of playing this game, and doubly so if you play DDs.

You being clueless would be nothing new, thus assuming you talked out of ignorance, as you tend to either to that or just straight out lie or obfuscate, would be a sane initial reaction. And the way you worded it very much made it look like that. You just casually dismissed any objections with a poorly thought out counter "argument" as you always do and then you have to work overtime to recreate your initial argument into something less silly. Hell, you even wrote "for all classes" when rather a huge amount of them could use way more than the max available. And if you think that's the only skills hugely benefiting IJN DDs then my first sentence in this reply applies even more, as you're completely forgoing any ability to really fend of enemy DDs up close.

Or it will just make CAs fodder at any range, even against a BB with its guns turned away. Most DDs will just stay at range. At most it will make SN DDs even worse.

That wasn't anything like what you actually wrote, so stop trying to retconn your poorly thought out "arguments". As usual you just throw stuff out, hoping people won't read through it twice, and ignore or twists it when people point out how wrong you are. The discussion involved choices that would total far in excess of 18 skillpoints, so don't even try to say otherwise. Though it's not like reality is your ideal battleground. I mean, you could actually address the rather larger part of my post, but you're living in make believe land where you can try to twist one line and then ignore the actual point of the argument. Which is that you can't get everything, or even close to it, of what you'd like to have, even if ignoring guns entirely.

You get a few seconds warning for DD torps, planes can be seen across half the bloody map. How much warning do you need? Seriously, it's absurd to see someone say they have less warning about planes than DD torps. And again, those torps were dropped into water, but shockingly, you can drop on a beach and then it will APPEAR to come from land, so unless you have a screenshot with the wake going through land, stop making that BS claim. Also that "t9 des moines" (it's a t10 ship, just fyi, but shows how little attention you pay to details) put itself into a spot where it was ill prepared to manouver.

Then don't say "just play more to get more skillpoints" Also, that will be "enough for what you want in a particular ship", where many (like USN DDs) will struggle to pick the new ones. And even an IJN DD will have to make sacrifices (mostly by entirely ignoring gun based skills and forgoing extra HP).

Erm.. yes. And that's just what you quoted me saying.

Could you possibly be more clueless? 18 is the max semi realistic amount you can get, and even then you'll have to do some serious considerations about what to use for what ship (and as some noted, this choice will be far easier for IJN DDs who can manage with less hp and worse guns).

Pff... you have to remember. If anything outdamages.. or outdoes in any metric, an equal tier BB, then those stats are incredibly important and requires WG to nerf or buff. Just don't mind how we hypocritically ignore that when BBs are amazingly OP in similar metrics, because then that's just.. err.. by design and they're supposed to... or something.

There's no "becoming visible by staying too long in smoke". If you're in smoke.. then you're in smoke. Also, smoke has a duration, so just minding the time will tell you when its gone. The issue is that smoke can become invisible if you're inside or really close due to how its rendered, so you might drift out of it and not notice or not realise you're outrunning your own smokelaying.

You might want to check out what a stock kongo is compared to a fully upgraded one (hint, there's no captain skill that adds 8km range to it). Nor does a BB really require a ton of skills at tier 5, and getting 6 points where you have the basics won't take long. At which point you either have to forgo a t4 skill for a while, wait to spend whatever free points you have, or respecc early into your next ship. Ie, you're semi-capped at max 6 skillpoints for tier 5 through normal play in any ship really. A 6 skillpoints takes very few games to get (my kongo captain is nearly at 9 after 21 games). Secondarily, many who buys a new t5 won't even be retraining a captain for gold, which means that they barely if at all have as good a captain as you will have after a couple battles worth. Chances are very much that the captain in a t5 ship will have been a fresh captain at t4, possibly not even with the +3 skill point gold training, and thus not really have many skillpoints at all when reaching t5 (and again, not being retrained for gold means he'll be stuck unretrained for as long as a new captain needs to reach about his amount of skillpoints -1) So basicly, your assumption that a normal Kongo will have some great advantage due to a good captain is flawed. For the myoko, not having a new captain hurts a lot more, though you could just use the kongo captain you'd have gotten earlier in it to good effect (and yes, those ships will be playable with a very similar captain setup). Still in a normal t7 you'd expect a 12-13 point captain, which would take quite a few games. Nor is a stock Myoko a quarter as poor relatively as a stock Kongo. Though it takes a far more dedicated player to get that ship quickly (which adds to what I note further down). P.S The ARP Kongo missions require a t5 ship, and both missions requires quite a few battles to get through the first kill mission (assuming 1 kill a game, converted into one mission kill per 4 games and you get roughly 120 games just for the first mission). The point being there that if you got them early, then you're a pretty active player and the average of those will be way above the average player ability.

Compare hit rates of torps and shells, then realise hitting with torps is already far more based on random luck than you could ever have with shells.