AgarwaenME

The problem isn't the restrictions, but the all but worthless rewards.

Looking at your stats, it would seem that you ARE playing vs better players. ftfy

ridiculous hyperbole absurd demands that WG should somehow control how people play thinks sub-average performance in ranked battles should let him raise in ranks claims about what happened in the test season that are entirely unfounded if not just outright lies what else is new?

I'm afraid buying the Hood is a decision that might blow up in my face....

Because you need to know where to get it?

If they did nothing, then how would it be "back again"?

You really need to understand what's written instead of arguing against something else. The point is, you made an argument implying CAs should never be able to fight against BBs because they're not supposed to. By extension then BBs should have no defenses against CVs at all. Which noone in their right mind would want. Thus the actual problem is finding the balance where BBs have the clear advantage without being able to dominate CAs in every situation and at any difference in player skill.

Do you have some actual argument or are you satisfied with taking something out of context and throwing out a clueless comment? If it wasn't clear, I'll reiterate it to those hard of thinking, too well before would be "too well for your effort compared to others". As in how the rewards have been moved around to favour capping/defending caps. If this is too hard for you to understand you need to go back to school before talking in public again.

Sunk ships always only gave a minor bonus. I suggest you start fighting more around objectives, or just face the fact that you were awarded too well before.

Rewards were shifted towards objectives, ie capping, base defense etc. So pure damage done will get you less rewards.

Since delusional liars don't deserve replies, I'll just add a +1 to leluk.

How nice that it works 2v1, then lets make sure to always spawn ships 2v1 too, but that's not how it really happens. It's far more likely that 2-3 BBs will pick the lone CA in a group of mostly BBs to fire at, making it very hard to avoid all of it when 1-2 hits is all it take to kill or cripple you, because it's so absurdly quick to kill CAs compared to other BBs. And HE was only considered "op" by those that exclusively or nearly exclusively plays BBs. And BB ap was only less effective for about a week, as it's back to its no-skill-needed CA erasing self again now. And like every time there's changes to BBs, the same sort that's filled the forums for months on end to get CVs and DDs nerfed, will then gather up to protect their easy times. Which sort of gets us back around. Somehow it's crazy that a CA should be able to effectively fight or even hurt a BB since they're the counter to CAs, but the same sort of people will suddenly forget about that argument when whining about CVs or DDs. By their logic, all torps should be invisible to BBs always, and no BB should have any AAA whatsoever. Would that be fair? Or fun?

BBs does from slightly more to twice the damage that CAs does, so who's getting easy massive damage again?

I'm pointing out the strawman, and you repeat it, so for my reply to that you can read my previous post. And of course, your simplistic views of ship classes is just that, simplistic. Different nations DDs work very differently indeed, as some are DD hunters (USN, RN), others BB hunters (IJN, to an extend SN) or more opportunists (SN, to an extend USN) and for some nations this changes through the tiers even. As are many CAs not really heavy counters to CVs at all, even with defensive fire. In fact, many BBs are far better counters to CVs than those CAs, to the extent that they for many matchups are effectively pretty much immune (funny how you're not in the CV forum asking for nerfs to USN BB AAA eh?). The rest is just mindless BB mafia propaganda, as if there's some inherent skill to BBs that no other ship requires, when in fact they have far less to worry about than every other class, fewer active cooldowns, lower requirement to avoid damage, and being far more forgiving when they do take damage. CAs now have to hit pretty much only superstructure to have any chance of semi-decent damage to BBs, while BBs just aim roughly center mass and rolls the dice to randomly erase CAs. There's nothing more mindless about firing HE as a last resort to do a minimum of damage than firing AP with no more requirement to get kills than having a rough estimate of how much to lead your shots. As for the MM, that's just absurd a claim. Currently there's far more BBs than that, and next to no CVs in the queue at all (so few that it's near to impossible to play the highest tier CVs outside prime time due to their hardcoded mirrored matchup requirement). If anything the current queues, both in randoms and ranked, show how dominating BBs are. Again, if you really want to argue for the rock-paper-scissors approach, then do come to every "nerf CV" or "nerf torp" thread and argue it there. To reiterate, BBs can easily survive and fight the classes of ships designated as their counter, meaning, they're not automatic kills. So why should a CA be an automatic kill for any BB?

No one here is saying that they should fight on equal terms in case of equal skill, so that's a piss poor strawman. However if you think that's a good argument you're free to go into all the "omg nerf CV" or "omg torps are op" threads and repeat it there. Oh wait, you're busy complaining that DDs are op aren't you... talk about hypocrisy. What's up for discussion, is at what point of skill difference a CA will be allowed to sink a BB. Ie, how amazingly bad can a BB player be allowed to be and still beat a far better CA player. Or how many CA/CLs can pound on a BB without it having to care about it. And less armour in a CA is an issue, not because of BBs as no CA has armour of any relevance to AP from them, but in CA vs CA battles.

It would be strange, if it was in any way whatsoever true. There's more or less nothing in that sentence that isn't 100% wrong: Most damage done to BBs was and is from other BBs, nor was the atlanta ever more than an oddity with atrociously low performance, due to low range, high shell arc and being incredibly poorly armoured. Beyond that most BB-mafia whining was towards CVs or DDs. Not even the cleveland approached that level of tireless endless overused regurgitated crying and moaning, and the atlanta was far behind that.

So clearly the yamato needs heavy nerfing.

Actually, they often end up with a load of cap defense and get to finish off low hp ships as they try to cap. This gets them nicely rewarded, and then bias strikes and they think their kill ratio and xp makes that tactics "smart".

You might aswell ask how much of a chance an aoba has against a mogami or a NM against a NC. For that matter, while it might be hard on that BB, if it's a t8 BB vs. a t6 CV, then he can't even approach without loosing his full attacks worth of planes (and a t6 CV has little in the ways of replacements).

You're making claims about before and after that makes no sense whatsoever.

What OP said is pretty much what we were saying would happen months and months ago. Removing CVs as a real threat removes the most significant counter to BBs, and makes the only counter to the most stealthy DDs other DDs while leaving most CAs in a weak to useless position.

You seem rather confused. What's actually the case, is that those ships have mostly been nerfed (though the omaha got the range on its top hull fixed), while the BBs have been buffed. Thus it's not a case of them "now" being able to burn a fuso down, but that they can do it far less easily. Also, the reason you're spending a long time to kill them (ie, so fire actually have time to kill you), is that you're fighting from a range where you're least efficient while being mostly safe yourself . Once you actually grow a pair and go to the ranges where you'll wreck them in single salvoes you'll stop being scared of a bit of fire. As for the "spammers" part, it's just a stupid meme invented to somehow make it look more skillful to play the least skill dependent ship class in the game.

Though I'd probably be even more in favour of shifting xp and credit rewards in manners that makes offensive play for objectives (and as noted, to fill a certain function like AAA cover) even more rewarding, a medal (and flag maybe, the same flag you get from first kills for example) for top performer wouldn't be unthinkable.

And I see just as many sitting well behind their real effective ranges, and well behind their CA/CL "escorts". Nor does that example only apply to BBs, as there's others never taking offensive actions or fighting for wins instead of fighting for personal gain.

Except I don't at all. I just dislike the brigade of whiners we've had for months on end, blaming all their own faults on either their own ship being weak or others being op. I guess it hurts when you understand you're the real whiner eh? So talk for yourself instead of trying to call others biased.