AgarwaenME

Yep. Losing to randoms is one thing.. losing to clan mates is the wooooorst

Isn't it pretty obvious? If they end up on two different teams they should be fighting to win for each of their respective teams.

Yet it does show it's not some amazing outlier with absurdly good luck on fire chance rolls.

Remove the ability for players who have left the game to post in this forum and your problems go away.

op wanted to farm WR in a 3 man t10 div.. got farmed for WR by better players whines News at 11

You mean, extremely bad completely potato players?

Again. Mathematics. Simple mathematics even. That you have no actual reply beyond searching through my posts to give a neg reaction, is in these circumstances not really surprising.

Just because I look at a matchup, any matchup, and go "damn, I don't like that opposing my ship" is no reason whatsoever to entirely remove that type of ship from the game. I don't like massive AAA ships when I play CVs.. so remove AAA, I don't like radar or sonars when I play DDs, so remove those ships, I don't like 5 BBs spraying shells to randomly citadel my CAs, so remove BBs, I don't like permaburning in BBs so remove HE, I don't like targets that fire in ways where I can't just fire back, so remove smoke, cover and stealth... Just make this the only and default mode: The rest is just more generic overblown hyperbole. No you don't need a full "blob" to neuter a t10 CV (again, just like against EVERY OTHER SHIP CLASS you're not supposed to be entirely immune). As it is, CVs are already very very rare, barely do more damage than BBs, can very easily be countered (but just like torps, fire or whatever else, a lot still fail to do so), while every ship in the game is balanced somewhat around them being a possibility, and entirely ignoring a minimum investment in captain skills or upgrades should be something that costs you from time to time. "But I want to specc like CW all the time" isn't a valid argument.

First of all, stop pretending you speak for everyone else. Many players like battles with CVs even if they're not themselves in one. Many even play ships which trades other features for better innate AAA, ships who thus are far weaker if these features never come up. Removing CVs would thus require a full rebalance of every other ship. And you're not making a ship useless by spending a minimum on AAA skills (and if you play a secondary build, you get a near full AAA build as a bonus, since you want both aft and bft for that, so claiming you can't have AAA with a secondary build is completely silly). And generic tank skills also work well to reduce the effect from CV attacks, be it faster repairs and damage controls, more consumables, lower dot durations etc etc. What really is the case is that some ships can make themselves nigh unattackable even going alone (depending on matchups ofc), if they invest more than a minimum amount. Nor do you need a "blob" to counter most CVs, 2-3 ships sharing AAA auras already reduces the impace a CV can do just by doing damage (and no, you're not supposed to be able to be 100% immune). Ie, "I don't play them so remove them since that's a buff for me always" is just nonsense.

[Citation Needed]

You only have 23 battles in the missouri. To somehow drop that low would require you to have played 2/3s of them after the supposed changes, and doing nothing whatsoever in any of them. Ie, 10-15 battles where you lost all of them and hit no enemy ship or did any damage whatsoever. Which even for a poor player like you seem.. lets say, unlikely. This is called "mathematics", and no childish tantrum from you will change that. Beyond that, making any claims about changes based on 23 battles worth of experience in total? Complete nonsense.

You're making things up, and we know because we can go check the actual facts, and they don't align with your claims. QED. +edit to show these facts Your average performance in each ship, some key performance metrics: iowa 46% WR, 60k damage, 0.5kills, max damage 125k, hit ratio 27% missouri 48% WR, 65k damage, 0.6kills, hit ratio 26%, max damage 153k Not only aren't you doing 3 times as well in the iowa, you're doing WORSE than in the missouri. And no amount of fevered spamming of dislikes on posts that point out these facts will change this. Reality is what reality is, and in reality you're simply making things up (and that's being nice, the only other possibility is such a complete incompetence that you can't even go check your own performance).

So basicly. "Nerf CVs because I want to be 110% effective against every other ship class". And it's not like you need 9 points dedicated to AAA to improve it to where you're a serious threat to planes.

This reply basicly is "I have nothing so I'll pretend you used a fallacy". Which is an actual fallacy.

Except that's basicly what the OP of this thread is. So no, it's not irrelevant at all.

Except it's wildly different, and many contradicting, complaints..

And even more that are not, as are unicum or close to unicum players saying they see no difference. The point there was not as much about the people that played them being unicums, but that people with little experience with that ship (no matter their skill level) rushing to get it based on what they've seen in replays and vids and then getting a ship that's good but not some instawin 200k guaranteed damage monster. What I do dismiss out of hand are people who claim they routinely did X amount of damage, when a casual glance at their stat page says that this is entirely false, or who say they do worse in it than ship Y, when again that's easily checked to be false.

Again, actual numbers gives no reason to believe that it "used to perform better", even just in your hands. You simply have very few battles in it overall, and when you then have to split up those few battles to be both before and after this supposed change, the amount of actual experience you base it on becomes very very small. Especially when you've made claims about your earlier results that simply are false.

Yes.. because when they stealth nerf a ship they somehow earn money.. ye right. Or rather maybe a bunch of players rushed to get it after seeing cherry picked results or unicums playing it, and have little if any actual experience with what they themselves could do with it and tries to compare what they do with what their ego tells them they should be doing.

2-3 times better by what metric? WR? Damage? Hit rates? kills? Your ability to use hyperbole? Your average results in the missouri is a fair bit better than what you're doing in your iowa, and given the very low amount of battles you even have in the missouri (and not an awful lot in the iowa), it's quite amazing that you somehow could have done that badly in it over fewer than than your total to talk about "2-3 times better in the iowa". It would literally require you to do 20k damage games... So ye, you're just making things up.

But you didn't. Not in the least bit.

Because every link is going to be to something that actually works... and just because you can show supposed cheats that work that must means there's hundreds of thousands that use them.. right..

If you personally are worse than average.

Ofc, that (much like yamato, scharnhorst, bismarck) was a case of "keep firing until it's all drowny or all blowded up" since we're not taking chances it will get away. It says rather little about the minimum needed to make the ship incapable of continuing to fight (which is what the game counts as you being sunk).

All you did was whine, so nothing changed for you.