AgarwaenME

It is not the same ability. If it were it wouldn't work on the yubari at all, as it does not have DP guns.

Try to read. Try to understand. Try to not just twist words to make them suit some anti-WG narrative. The yubaris defensive AAA cooldown is NOT THE SAME THING, it's NOT THE SAME ABILITY. And again, any reason or sense would make you understand that a nerf to most cruisers AAA capabilities, even if it's one that's very marginal, would it no way indicate a buff to a somewhat similar ability on the yubari.

That's entirely beside the point. The yubaris extra AAA cooldown is not the same thing as other CAs defensive fire. There's no reason whatsoever to think it would get buffed when theirs was getting limited, absolutely none. You're free to ask for more, though at t4 that defensive fire is already pretty good compared to the extremely limited plane reserves on CVs, but to call it a "lie" that it didn't get two now, is absurdly stupid and dishonest.

The yubaris defensive fire is nothing like other CAs defensive fire. If other CAs have theirs nerfed, why on earth would you think the yubari would get its buffed?

It's even already up again.

Or maybe you never watch news and doesn't realise that they're down to have the new patch applied.

You do notice that there's so few people in the queue that the MM can't even make full teams? This is nothing new, and something you're only going to see in the late hours of the night. Also if you actually read patch notes and information, you'd see that WG has written that this can happen during such circumstances. If this is a problem, don't queue up in high tier ships when there's only a few K people online.

TB torps do not arm in 2 seconds.

When most of something isn't, and you cherry pick and present the few that are as if they are the norm, why on earth should anyone take you serious in your claims?

And NOTHING of what you're claiming there has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with what that patent says. What it actually reads as is "I'm bad and can't understand that some enemies will change speed and direction so I miss" and "I have lag so clearly that is WG manipulating the game to make me lose". And it's all due to your personal bias. You think you're better than you actually are, and you're at best slightly below average. But that's not something that bias can allow you to realise, so you need excuses. And as noted above, a patent does not mean anyone is using it. It means the want to monetize it. Beyond that, it's such a vague and unspecified patent that it's unlikely to hold up in court, outside of US patent troll courts.

There's only one way anyone could call data like that "blatantly biased" and that is if one has already decided it is so whatever the data actually says. Seriously, when your response to being proven wrong is to just go "oh I was wrong but I'll leave this and intentionally search for other things to prove my initial presupposition" then also claiming you're unbiased is for a lack of a better word, stupid (and also dishonest). Right way:"This is all the data, can we see trends" Wrong way, and OPs way: "This is what I want to prove, which out of all that data proves it". It's like reading a bad creationist, or vaccine or global warming denier.

Always easier to cry than to learn.

Yes, And guess what? That's not a coincidence. It HAS to be the case. It's far more likely that you'll see a team with 2-3 more high WR players on a team than any sort of combination where it's nearly equal. The ONLY way you could get what you seem to think should be happening randomly is by NOT picking randomly.

Eh what? What happened to the Omaha vs the Murmansk is clear as day. The murmansk used to have greater range in what was effectively a Omaha C hull (two fewer guns and only one set of tubes on each side), and the loss of torps and guns for a small buff to AAA meant that many skipped buying the C hull at all. Then the Omaha C hull was buffed to also increase fire range to the same as the murmansk, which outside very slightly better torp range and the difference in fighter vs. spotter plane (a matter of preference, and personally I'd rather have the fighter), at which point the ships are as close to identical as there's any point in two ships being. The murmansk was NOT buffed in that patch, it was not changed at all (+edit, what you, being clueless to what actually happened, seem to be confused by, is a poorly translated line that could imply that the murmansk was getting the same sort of buff, what is actually meant is that the omaha is getting a buff that is ALREADY APPLIED to the murmansk). Thus there's no reason whatsoever if based on pure performance charateristics of those two ships that either should get better stats. Yet that's happening. And why do you think? Could it possibly be just what I said? That one ship is used by experienced captain to grind credits (and will thus have a far better captain, which due to the AFT skill makes rather a large difference) and one's mostly played through until you've finished researching the cleveland. Or are you in all seriousness going to claim that people play a normal t5 ship they want to progress from, as much as they play a ship they spent real money on to fund high tier purchases? Don't be silly. And again, as the murmansk is actually a USN ship, how on earth is that "russian bias"? How is "the ship we borrowed is so great" biased toward the russian navy or russian manufacturers? Basicly, you're desperately digging for dirt and don't mind lying and cherry picking to do so. Also, again, since there's basicly two ships with any sort of relevant sample size, all the other ships being so new that it's utterly foolish to make any sort of conclusion about their actual performance, making a claim that all ships with russian flags are better shows that there's only one real bias here, and that is yours.

Actually the fact that the murmansk, with pretty much exactly the same actual performance as the omaha, still having better stats reinforces MY point (well, that and that those stats likely contains old data from omaha pre-buff), which is that there's a huge difference from those just playing through the omaha, and those playing large amount of battles in the Murmansk for credits to fund high tier ventures. And where's the "russian bias" in them having a good ship if they did not build it, and only had it on loan for a couple years? Sure, I'm getting 70% WR and doing a respectable 60k average damage or so in the murmansk, but then I also got nearly the same pre-buff in the omaha and I've played 1k more battles since then. All it shows is that the ships are pretty much identical, but that the stats you get from a site where only those who cares about stats sign up for aren't going to give you actual useful data for balancing the game around. And yes, you are lying, lying by omission, lying by selectively picking stats.

There's BARELY any russian ships even in the game. And for most of them ie. ALL the non premiums we only have a few weeks worth of games for them, nor are the people grinding them quickly to high tiers going to be an equal spread of skill levels. There's more or less only TWO russian ships with relevant data and one of them isn't even a russian ship, but a ship on lend lease from the US. Statistics lie all the time, especially when people try to use them for lies. Warshipstats isn't even a reliably source.

What's most, 17, 14, 10 or 9? Hint, it's not 9 The rest of your post is more or less as accurate as that point.

You're cherrypicking stats by reducing your sample size to only premiums and only one server (and worse yet, the RU server). That's a mix of being dishonest and clueless.

You're forgetting, it can hurt BBs, so clearly it's unfit to be where it is.

While the economy could see some overhauling, the game isn't balanced to allow you to only sit at t10 permanently being top tier in games for a reason.

I wonder if the OP knows he's only playing against computer controlled opponents? Because the reason for him "winning more often than not" is that 90%+ WR in coop is hard to go under. Possibly you changed from coop to random? Because that's going to be a harsh awakening after 1200 coop battles. Because contrary to what some wannabe elitist trolls would say, bots are still no match at all for an actual player behind the helm. And while I guess he's more suited to pve, and it's nice if he realises that, the things he's noticing is rather most likely to be due to his ignorance about specific mechanics. As people have noted, check youtube, though I'd avoid those more aimed toward err.. lets say, the tier above your current skill level, and more the videos about the pure basics. Like jingles "how not to suck" videos.

Your problem is that you ignore most of the learning curve by converting free xp to get to ships you have no idea how to play. Your lack of skill isn't something the game should be balanced around.

Try english.

And that's the entire point, people would "love" to have none of their counters on the opposing team, much like how the op only plays t10 to always be top tier. He doesn't want a fair game. But that does not make for a good game.

It would be stupid and boring. There's already enough BBs camping in the back, a game mode like that would be nothing but that. It's like playing chess with only queens. You're stupid. Stop being stupid.