AgarwaenME

Thing is, even with that range it can't outrange same tier BBs. Also, if that's a problem, why isn't it an issue for you how the Kongo can both outrange, and outrun the NY?

At max range the Murmansk really is only able to harass, so I highly doubt you're doing the sort of damage you do purely from max range. But then people tend to contort reality into whatever they need to, to have some excuse to rant against someone and to shift any sort of blame away from themselves. You dare stay at a range where you can turn and weave to avoid my shots, while still landing your own? Faced with the reality that other people might just be a lot better, there's nothing more creative than the human mind when looking to turn that reality around.

Colorado

So basicly, you were completely 100% wrong. See what reading helps you understand? And if you think this change is minor, then there's nothing to actually whine about now is there?

Yes, the ratio stays the same, which means their effective HP from healing is of even more value. 5(90*0.15)>5(60*0.15) How's that for basic math?

100-500m. Reading isn't your strong suite is it? And these are confirmed changes, not your tinfoil hat ideas born out of your ego that tells you that you can "feel" what's changed better than those making the game.

Sorry, do you not understand how the reply and quote functions work? That was not directed directly toward you. Nor have you suggested anything like that in this thread. You just threw out a question indicating they're suddenly overperforming.

He's a tip for you, 14% out of 90k is more than 14k out of 60k. Nor does it address the point about how little impact those T8 CVs have, which means you'd need not merely a linear increase, but a massive increase to make them competitive. Nor does average damage really tell much at all, as it was just a note about how people will cherry pick things to compare, much like how you ignored the request to compare CA to BB average damage. Doing more damage could as easily be a sign of there being more targets (ie more BBs). (Hell, those values aren't even all that close for the different servers). Also, even that average damage, means that on average, a T10 CV will not sink a T10 BB, unless it's done by detonation or in a single salvo. How's that for OP counter? "You get to do 75% of the damage needed to sink the ship you're designed to attack". While taking the comparison back to CA vs BB, the average damage by a BB can sink TWO CAs. Realisticly, if you'd actually care about it, that numbers means little unless you know which targets that damage was done to.

Yes, it's shocking how that increase in damage done is nearly the same as the increase in BB effective hp at those tiers. Ie, if they're op at T10, they would have to be just as OP at T8. For your next trick, compare BBs to CAs. But I get it, when it's about CVs, it's perfectly acceptable to use average damage as a measure against BBs, you know, the target they're supposed to be doing heavy damage to, but when you compare CAs to BBs average damage, then suddenly BBs are "supposed to do more damage".

That's a point that can't be stressed enough. But instead of focusing on the actual issues, and those are issues we predicted would happen if the nerf criers were paid attention to, they just want to continue the whack-a-mole style of "nerf this, and then this, and then this, because no matter how many people tell me what will happen if they do, I'll just ignore that since I can only focus on the things I struggle with right now". It's as if they don't get what happens if you nerf DD torps again. All that will result is in even more people queueing in BBs, and thus even less reason to queue in CAs, which means you just get even more people in DDs. Basicly, it will do nothing at all to the queue pattern. If they actually wanted fewer DDs, they should be asking for buffs to make CAs and CVs good choices. More planes in the air, and more low calibre high rof guns covering the map is how you defeat DDs, not by nerfing them.

Again, when your ability to counter BBs is the "deciding" factor, that says more about BBs than DDs. Also, countering doesn't mean "always wins vs". Sure I see CAs dying left and right to torps, as they should when they do monumentally stupid things. That still doesn't mean that under normal combat conditions a CA is far better suited to fight a DD than the other way around. The ability to sink DDs with a BB doesn't by itself make a BB OP does it? Nor as DDs uniformly anti BB, with some being way more anti-DD than anything else (which is why you get threads complaining about the Benson in ranked, as it counters those playing fubuki to counter BBs) and some being little more than large CLs.

Again, you're both lying and being hypocritical, in that you both insult then call for others to get forum banned for insulting. That's what you do, and it's not me insulting you when I point it out. When you stop lying, I'll stop point out when you lie. Then you try to twist that around into concern trolling. If you for once would be able to actually talk about the issues, and address arguments, instead of as you do, always going for personal attacks, that would be nice. So try that for once. Also for the last time, torpedo detection ranges where indeed change. This entire thread is about that subject. http://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/cbt/patch-alert-052/ Read. Be less ignorant.

Lower damage and fire chance is offset by more shells on target. Nor is that "trick" exclusive for the 203s, just that the 155s can reach out and do it while you're still at ranges where it's relatively easy to avoid some BB fire.

First point is very true. However the Mogamis overall performance has been used to call for nerfs to it (not buffs) and as you note I've also pointed out that compared to other ships that means the weaker CAs needs buffs and their whining against a CA that can fight back to some extent is just that, whining. However overall it's much better than say an Aoba (which afaik gets outperformed by cleveland still). As is the CLs at T5 mostly good to great (furrytaco excluded), so I'd still call it one of the best CAs tier for tier (until I see numbers showing otherwise).

Yes, you never try to insult anyone. No wait, that and lying is the only thing you seem capable off, even in this very post. Stop lying and you won't get called a liar. And stop claiming others are being insulting when you yourself are and you won't be called a huge hypocrite anymore. For now, you're both a liar and hypocrite (besides how clueless you have to be to say that IJN DDs didn't play much of a role). Also, you're even saying that torps didn't get a buff. When anyone with half a brain can find that in patch notes. Hell this entire thread is due to that change. Your problem is that you can't make your inability to hit with torps fit your ego, so you invent some other reason why you can't hit with them that gives you an excuse to continue pretending you're as good as you think you are, while also excusing why you get hit by the same torps.

Firstly, you might want to pay enough to attention to how that was related to ranked battles. So shima's would hardly apply. And even then it's somewhat amusing how you consider DDs the deciding factor, as if being the counter to the dominating class makes you somehow dominating. Shima's does one thing, and that's damaging and sinking BBs. If that somehow makes them decide battles, then that would because they're countering the actually deciding factor, BBs.

So then what was your point? Both are going to be heavily dissfavoured, so why even argue against that? A CA might be able to evade two BBs, as can a BB avoid two DDs. It's two ships of a single ships counter class in both circumstances.

Or maybe in reality, even if I know how you have a problem with reality, lowering the range will benefit the shima much more. Since it you know, does most of its damage with torpedoes, unlike the Gearing which can have good matches even while hitting with no torps at all. Nevermind how turning a long detection range 10% worse, is going to make you land way more extra torps than an already short range ever would.

Answer? Because it's not true, and as usual you make up things when you need to, to fit your bias. Also the MM tries to limit BBs per battle (giving BBs long queues). People actually want to play BBs in ranked, because they decide battles. The queues are filled with BBs, not DDs. And the reason why people play DDs is that they're the only real counter to BBs. Also, 90% of DDs dead in 3-4 minutes? That's just outrageous hyperbole. You're not someone anyone should take serious.

And those are the only two DDs in the game, and it's not like one of them is primarily a gunboat and gains far less from this buff either. Lets just all continue to twist reality and throw out random red herrings while ignoring every point that's been shown to be just a load of biased crap.

Or maybe it's the brain dead horde of BBs in ranked (the class you actually see far more of in the queue). Maybe it actually is relevant to the stats we have seen since CBT, with most DDs being far under-represented and underperforming. You know, actual facts. Do you know what the word "fact" means? How is that even relevant to what I wrote? Nor are those buffs related to last season of ranked, as these changes are far too close to the end of that season.

Wow, you actually got the point of that post. Now consider why that would relate to the post I replied to.

And so what? It's still wholly dishonest to just claim it's DD players crying given the stat of this forum. And why would WG buff torps? Maybe it's related to how so many DDs underperformed for months on end? Maybe they use hard facts? Ever considered that?

Unlike this thread which is nothing but kids crying they actually have to pay a tiny bit of attention to anything beyond their bino view. And also, of course most threads aren't at all by people who are BB fans crying about HE, fire, torps, CVs, or anything at all. I mean, as long as you manage to ignore this entire forum.

As you should be, try to picture that being a NO against two Amagis. I'll bet your BB had a lot larger chance to get away than it would.