AgarwaenME

You're going extremely close to attack the ship type best equipped to sink you and you're surprised you struggle? If you want to do that mission, pick a more suitable ship (as you will have to do anyways to get 150 plane kills). And doubly silly to then complain that you're a target for a mission when you target others specificly for that mission too.

Hilarious, claims are made and disproven, and you blame the people disproving them for going off topic. While you also think you can just go "omg that's off topic" and ignore the points even if derivative of the topic. And so you do know where the bulges are, why talk as if you don't then? The entire point is that some places will take more damage than others, there's no magical "crits" for torpedoes beside the random damage roll within the possible damage done that pretty much everything has. Torpedoes don't magically crit for full damage or do citadel hits, so besides very (un)lucky detonations there's no way that 6 TBs can sink a T9 BB quite simply because the total maximum damage they can do is nothing close to the HP of those ships (which assumes a worst possible scenario where the captain in the BB is worse than afk, ie he's pretty much actively trying to get hit by an entire spread), which was his claim.

By hitting the unprotected parts of the ship. You really need to get yourself informed about how torpedo bulges work and where they are on ships.

Irrelevant to his claim. Also, torpedoes cannot do citadel hits.

If someone makes up things due to intentionally wanting to lie or being ignorant, then why not tell them that's what they're doing? If you don't want to be called a lier or ignorant, stop telling bad lies or "facts" anyone can easily show as wrong. Also, due to torp protection you could take much less than half hp. And that assumes that someone you took all 6 hits, which would require some amazing screwups on your part, and more or less demands huge luck on the part of the CV player to not have any planes shot down (again, requiring an extremely easy time for the CV players due to very poor manouvering from whomever was in the BB). And after that, the BB will repair half the damage taken. And in the end, after having used a TB squad that takes 3-4 mins to do that attack (rearm, launch, fly, attack, fly back), you'd have done no more damage than a BB easily could do in the same time frame. And that's assuming a ridiculous series of luck and bad play from whomever was in the BB. A more realistic attack would be 6 hits from two full TB squads worth, and that's against a lone BB.

And it's the WoT attitude that's the problem, not just the whole "giving up before it's even started" thing. But that they don't get how this IS NOT WOT. Where a lower tier (or even worse stock) tank can easily find itself nearly totally unable to cause problems for an enemy, this just isn't the case here. In pretty much every possible BB vs BB matchup you will be able to citadel your opponent and the same applies across the board nearly the same (CV issues aside).

There's no t9-10 BB that sinks to 6 torps from planes. Period. If you're going to throw out biased crap, atleast try to make it even slightly less obvious how clueless you are.

Good player seeing that matchup - "Ok, how are we winning this?" Bad player seeing that matchup - "OMG WE ALREADY LOST OMG!!"

When I made that post about a popup window to accept being hit by torpedoes, it was a joke. And you're not alone in having to pick the correct skills and equipment, as all ships do.

Sorry, you're the one on a crusade. I reply to people demanding nerfs to things that can hurt them when that's completely bonkers in the state the game is now (I mean, some nutcase was complaining in some thread that CAs were overpowered compared to BBs, can you believe such lunacy?). As for USN DDs, I'm sure I'll remember to try playing them when I go play my Fletcher. And, of course the reason you might hit CAs (and DDs) more often in ships with low torpedo range, is because that's what short range torps are used for. Shocking isn't it? A BB that sees you charge in, is trying to avoid you, a DD or CA is hunting you. Those are entirely different scenarios.

So what you're saying is, that new players eat torps. Just as I said. What other points I've made do you feel required to repeat? And keep throwing out your biased anti-CA bullcrap. Really amusing as I'm sure you'd have no problem both complaining how CAs don't hunt DDs, while also complain that when they do engage into dangerous waters to keep your [edited]alive they don't always succeed.

What you've actually found is that low tier players, not players that prefer a specific class, are more likely to eat torps.

OMG SHOCK AND HORROR! You might need to buy module to have the advantage of better detection!!! Because it's not like it's a damn requirement to fill that slot in any other class of ship is there?

There's quite enough BB exclusive players (and other idiots) who wouldn't be satisfied if before getting hit by any torp would like to have a popup come up on screen "Do you want to be hit by torpedoes, YES/NO?". And still they would manage to screw up and hit "Yes". They keep giving BBs advantages, and they keep asking for more. And they still don't get that the reason for all the DDs, are because they're the only counterplay to BBs now.

Remember, if other people are avoiding torps, but you can't, that means they're impossible to avoid.

Funny how you're both so incredibly ignorant (the main guns on the atlanta do work against aircraft) but at the same time feel qualified to make judgements. And no, the reason the Cleveland appears good, is because it's compared to the pensa and NO, which are some of the worse performers in the game. And while it's true that in some respect it plays like a big DD, it's still got the concealment value of a CL and a citadel comprising the entire ship, which makes it far less survivable than either comparable DDs or CL/CAs.

Yet you're still so amazingly good in CA/CLs that you can own BBs left and right, just that you chose not to (also, the way you describe CA/CLs would make them even better to lead a charge). You really are truly amazing at disproving your own BS.

Keep pretending others are biased when you throw out absurd untruths and actually biased bullcrap that goes against all collected statistics. And again, you claim cruisers are better, yet YOU YOURSELF perform FAR BETTER in BBs.

Amazing level of hypocrisy. Suddenly a ship that has high theoretical dpm on paper (yet by any collected stats performs atrociously bad) is the best in the game. Get a clue. And you don't get to talk about experience in BBs when you skip entire ships with free xp because you're too scared to fight in a ship that might be hard. And given how much better I play in those we share experience in, I'd talk even less if I were you. But then your failings in playing them goes hand in hand with your arrogant belief that it's ship imbalance, and not yourself that's making you play badly in them.

ironhammer500, on 29 December 2015 - 11:00 PM, said: Your just looking at the max damage, which you have not proven actually happens in game, while i proved the real values of damage that happens and it is no where near the max damage...come back when you actually understand what im saying because some how your only looking at the stat sheets, not the pictures i linked. Also you assume a battleship lands all its shells 100% of the time... Prove this fuso will deal 5700 damage using 1 HE round, without a Citadel hit... So lets do the effing maths. Tirpitz - 700 * 10 is what now? 7000 total Pensacola - 900 * 10 is what 9000 * 2 18,000 Bu I do understand what you're saying, you're using your stories as evidence as you don't understand that biased selection of samples isn't evidence for anything. I can make tons of pictures of HE shells hitting for ZERO damage or 50 hits without a single fire set, without that being what they do on average, or of HE shells hitting for tons and multiple fires per salvo and that would still not prove anything. You gladly say I assume (I mean, you gladly assume a CA will always hit, but a BB doesn't somehow under the same circumstances) when you do NOTHING but assume and make claims with no evidence. Where what I use for evidence is the game mechanics, rate of fire, armour protection, damage per shell etc, you pick one hit out of millions and pretend it proves something. Scawl_D_Balls, on 29 December 2015 - 11:24 PM, said: I'm a new player and it was a brand new experience for me. They eventually sunk me. I'll learn from it. Have some manners. Make posts as a grown up, and people will answer you like one. ironhammer500, on 29 December 2015 - 11:29 PM, said: He players mainly cruisers so explains why hes so hostile to towards any that will attack them. Funny the Murmansk is his most used, which is just as OP as the atlanta. That's (like so much you say) completely untrue. Nor do I expect your tiny mind to get the point why it's my most used ship (here's a hint, because its premium and I have many high tier and costly ships). But then you're the one that's actually singularly playing, defending, and attacking everyone but a single line of ships. Funny how your sort of player will use peoples ships in such arguments, as people like you have also accused me of being a CV and also a DD player. Funny thing is, including CBT I have as many or more games in BBs than you too, so does that make me biased towards them too? We might be creating a wormhole here now. And if the Atlanta, one of the worst ships in the game, and the worst currently purchaseable premium (oddly enough, the worse one is the sims, which you also are claiming is op) is OP, then you're beyond help.

Again, it's your own goddamn gun statistics, 12 guns*5700, do the effing math. Much like how that pensa does 2700 per hit with 10 guns and twice the ROF,And again, not that you care about things that might contradict you as you just ignore anything you can't make up lies or cherry pick screenshots for, for that CA to force a BB to use HE, it would loost HALF ITS GODDAMN GUNS. 12*5700 > 10*2700*2 That's the best possible scenario for that CA. If that's too hard maths for you, go back to 4th grade. Effectively you need to drop the damage done to the BB as it has better HE protection, and also halve the number of guns the CA can use. And no, there's not some magical formula where DD or CA shells somehow hits harder for their max value than BB shells does. Stop pulling stuff out of your [edited]. BBs are not in a bad position compared to CAs, as certain as hell not at a disadvantage 1v1, as is bloody eminently obvious from the ship queue, collected statistics, and base ship abilities. You're contorting yourself in lies and ignorance to make up some absurd scenario where BBs somehow gets overpowered by CAs on a regular basis.

So two enemy players in ships especially designed as your counter spent an entire match not sinking you. Well boo hoo.

You're arguing against yourself dude. I never said ships did max damage with HE, I even specificly said they do not. And you ignore the blatant fact that BBs have MORE protection against damage from HE shells than CAs do. And when BBs then atleast have the same theoretical HE dpm, combined with better protection against it then no, that CA is not favoured. And again, to even be in a position where HE would be your prefered ammo against a CA then that CA needs to be more or less facing entirely front or rear towards you, at which point IT CANNOT USE ALL ITS GUNS. You've proven nothing, and all you claim goes directly against collected stats which shows BBs ahead of CAs by 50-100% for many relevant comparisons. You're so blitheringly stupid that you can't even check your own stats for a comparison, and see how much more damage you do tier for tier in BBs compared to CAs. You are yourself your own best evidence for you being completely wrong. And if you're going to complain about a sims, the ship that more or less is worst tier for tier in the entire game, it just shows your incredible level of ignorance. And just a quick fyi, firing with the sims against BBs of similar tiers you're going to be seeing 150-200hp of average damage at best, as BBs easily turns hits into ZERO damage done (you have a far smaller target than the sims itself to do damage against a BB).

Unlike you I'm actually not making things up. That's the actual values from the guns. And if you were able to do the simplest of maths you'd see that was actually far less than the maximum possible for a fuso. Hell, you're even just here providing the maximum values, so clearly you aren't entirely illiterate. Effectively you'll see far less of course, (and if that was too hard for a IQ starved mind like you do understand, I was not talking about likely actual damage, unlike you who use specificly selected examples made out to suit your absurd bias). As it is, HE doesn't do full damage due to reduction from armour, but that reduction is FAR GREATER on BBs. Thus claiming that a full salvo of 12 HE shells, each with double the potential damage, somehow barely does 50% more than 10 shells with half that damage, is crazy beyond words. In actuallity, that Fuso (and lets remind ourselves how it's even a tier lower than a pensa) would do atleast the same amount of HE damage to a Pensa as it would do back to it. And then you add that the Fuso has 3-4 times the effective HP and it's patently obvious which of those two ships are at a huge advantage. And again, a CA that positions itself in a manner where HE might become the option against it, would reduce its own damage output by half, unlike a BB that can just sail broadside against it. Which means the prior calculation should halve the HE damage from the Pensa, so now it suddenly becomes "twice the damage and 4 times the hp and yet I think I'm the underdog". Basicly, you're absurd. You cherry pick examples, you ignore obvious truths, you ignore actual collected stats and you ignore everyone that plays both sort of ships when they tell you how full of cow manure you are. You're the perfect example as to why there won't ever be enough nerfs to whatever ships you don't favour that ever will be enough. And when you start to spew ignorant gibberish against the one class of ships which is most disfavoured to your favourite, it just becomes even more obvious.

How about you actually play the game enough to know this? Or if that's too hard, just go read the stats on the ships in the tech tree. Then you might want to consider how BBs have from good to great protection to HE damage (where CAs do not), and how a full salvo of HE from a fuso is still 50k damage. BBs have HIGHER HE damage than CAs, not less, they only get to also have another type of ammo that can do double even of that. And if the threat of that AP forces a Cleveland to go front first, then that Cleve loses half its guns, unlike BBs who can mindlessly turn more or less either way when facing most CAs. So again, stop being so utterly ignorant, and maybe you might stop yourself from posting stupid drivel the next time.