AgarwaenME

Sorry, but again. Take the places on the planet where you have the most extreme mountain drops into water (and deep enough water for ships) and even there it's no problem whatsoever for a plane to spot a ship from 10-20k feet. I do note how you somehow don't complain that this plane that could spot you, was also visible to you. Because everyone knows it's perfectly logical to have a 10m plane be more visible than a 50m ship though a mountain while your ship shouldn't be. And as already mentioned, there's no los that saves a plane from AAA, which you also failed to address. As far as game mechanics go though, planes don't actually fly at any elevation, as they would really be immune to all AAA until they started an attack run, and really would be mostly invisible until they did so unless spotted by other aircraft. Which was my point, people look at a complete scenario and pick whatever is to their detriment, determine it as "unrealistic" and then demand it be changed, while completely ignore how it's a huge set of unrealistic features designed to make it a playable game.

I know very well why you do it, and that was my very point. How you failed to understand that I struggled to understand, until I saw your later words and could establish your level of mental aptitude better. "Lets take something people dislike in a different game and that people think is op there and pretend something I dislike in this game is the same", it's simple a shortcut for you. It would be like saying "rogues were such a pain in vanilla WoW, so instead of talking about what DDs can and cannot do I'll just say they are similar and copy paste someones dislike for WoW rogues onto WoWs DDs". It's cheap, silly and a complete fallacy. To be more detailed; comparing CVs to artillery in wot is just biased nonsense. The only thing they really share is the point of view, everything else is different. Wot artillery are high rng factor weapons using large calibre guns often firing at targets well beyond that targets range. I'll leave it to you to find the one ship class in WoWs that shares most similarities with that (not that these similarities really matter, as I don't need to compare anything in this game to a different one to get around making a real case). Conversely, CVs are HIGH skill based, LOW rng (as you do in your post, implying that CVs take little skill, is just a total absurdity), as even AAA is fairly predictable (though needing of normalisation to plane health pools across tiers) where you basicly have to calculate your expected planes losses (your primary health pool as a CV) on every attack (again unlike most other ships, where merely firing your weapons only comes at a small cost of the reload, which even compared to the longest reloading DDs is a fraction of the time cost for a CV strike, in addition to losing your weapons merely by attacking). And I'm not sure where you get that I'm using real life excuses or fantazy scenarios from, probably the same place you pull all your other nonsense from, but if you think range is the only advantage BBs have in this game, I wonder if you've ever played it at all. Being deleted in one salvo might not be "fun", but then screwing up and paying for it isn't something a lot of people find "fun", but if nothing else they might learn from it. The issue is more that some people when faced with it instead goes "but this was unfair". And this applies evenly to CAs/BBs showing broadsides (though lately BBs have been changed and designed to be able to do so and usually get away from it), any ship sailing blindly for ages until torped, ships sitting still in smoke and getting torped, DDs going to positions they should very well know there's little escape opportunities and loads of sonar/radar, or any ship sailing solo somehow expecting their own CV to dedicate his planes to keeping them alive on some edge of the map as they present themselves as the easiest target for a CV to focus on. And while CVs needs fixing, it's not in the way you propose, unsurprisingly as the problems you think they have aren't in any way the ones that really plague them.

Talk about a massive strawman. What actually happens is that people make some inane thread demanding buffs for BBs (using very similar wording to what you're using, just even more inflated), frequently using the "but but realism" (while as usual ignoring every unrealistic feature in their benefit). Then people point out raw facts and statistics to counter nonsense like "but warspite made a hit at 26km, so it should be easy to do that in game". You're merely trying to pretend that these rebuttals are the original argument, they're not. And "but but I'm not saying they should be buffed, I'm just making the case that they're ever so nerfed". Ye, that only deserves a big fat "lol".

Sorry, but you wouldn't be able to understand if I told you. No wait, that would be doing what you're doing, pretending you have some point and others being unable to understand instead of actually making a sensible point. I only address what you're written here, which is just nonsensical ideas like "health points with repair is a nerf to BBs compared to reality", ignoring how there's no additional drawbacks to having your entire superstructure burned and blown up than losing from a hit point pool you can replenish, when in real life even minor hits could cripple your ability to fire your guns for effect. As for favourite ship class, your words here makes that clear enough. Contorting yourself to twist game play mechanics that favour one ship class over others to actually be a nerf alone makes that clear.

What? The same regurgitations we've read for 3 years? Whatever claim to "realism" you make is one where you define things as an unrealistic nerf to your favourite ship class, and you're not alone to make this fallacy on this forum, you're not even alone in this very thread (not even including the op).

Lets skip the hogwash comparison to Wot artillery, as it's always abused by those with an agenda against CVs because it's a shortcut to established biases. Anything you say in that post could be (and have been on this forum) used against every other class of ship, CVs as a "support class"? Just wtf? You want to know a "support" class? BBs fits that a lot better; few in number, used sparingly to support the main force of DDs and CAs, or just to give AAA support to CVs. But then you can define any ship as support if that's your agenda, when the real "support ships" were troop ships, cargo ships, tankers, airplane tenders etc.

Classy. Clearly you're not one interested in adult conversation.

Then just point out that then.. You may return to whining about BBs not being as op as you imagine they were in real life now.

Again, what do you mean.

Which is supposed to mean what?

Except most islands would do nothing much to cover you from the air (unless we're talking about setting anchor close to a cliff and throwing a ton of camouflage on you, none of which ships here do). From 10-20k feet the amount of cover an island would give you would be next to nothing. Given how even Norwegian fjords provided little to no help against getting spotted from the air (being some of the steepest mountainsides close to water you'll ever find) it would be completely unrealistic that some fairly flat or small cliff would give you any cover whatsoever. I do notice how you fail to mention how the same islands you think should provide perfect cover, also somehow fail to provide any cover whatsoever against your AAA (and neither does plane elevation, unlike reality where it basicly only was usable on planes as they attacked, not when merely passing close). You also fail to notice how much easier planes are than ships, given the ridiculous differences in size, and how ships leaves both heavy smoke and wakes in the sea. Ie, this bit of "unrealism" is very much in your favour already.

Currently they're performing very similarly statisticly (unlike before), so there's really no cause to say either is outclassing the other (while you could say that the haku did before the recent changes to loadouts). *edited* This post has been edited by the moderation team due to Naming & Shaming

6 battles to unlock final task, then just "regular" play while finishing that (and doing the 75k xp and 10 BB kill tasks to clear them out too). Most annoying part of this campaign will be going back to finish the 11 torp hit with RN task and the DoY tasks for the "honours" achievement.

Because looking at a queue to get into something tells you very little about how many are actually inside? Coop is easier to set up battles for than random battles (or even ops) so there are going to be a lot less just sitting in the queue waiting to get in.

How about using this guy?

*edited* *This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.

Problem is, the tard sitting in the back "sniping" is still going to get overrun by the enemy at the end and end up getting just as much bonus rewards from the damage he takes then. Just like a "sniper" can top the scoreboard as he does incidental damage for 10 minutes and then get to take on damaged enemies as they push to finish him off as their last enemy.

It's a pretty good example yes, he's getting 2-3 times the damage he does in other ships, and for t10s his highest WR (where the team has to depend on him more than say in his t8s).

Wow, this has devolved even more into the same blitheringly moronic ignoring of actual realities, of the actual points made (replying to something entirely different than what the quote actually talked about over and over). I mean, quoting "doing negblible damage" while ignoring the part that comes after "that actually hurts a team" is a pure quote mine. Ie. a pathethic way to lie, to pretend there's a contradiction where there's none. If you can manage to post anything without lying I might consider replying, until then you can keep your trolling without my input.

Sorry, but sticking your finger in the air and saying "it is because I say so" isn't actual proof of anything (just as little as making up one sided arguments where you ignore every other influencing factor because they break your troll idea). The Conq has a better heal to make up for FAR worse max hp, not to make up for some supposed weak armour configuration. And if you think that's a contradiction, ie doing more damage but being less effective, then I do wonder if you ever played BBs at all. To explain it to you slowly: With HE and fire you can do MORE raw damage against BBs. BBs have repair party. It heals fires VERY effectively. Thus doing 100k damage with AP/HE pens could sink a BB, but 60k HE+60k fire might not (and you will do even more fire by spreading them across more targets). Thus the first is effective at sinking ships, the other at doing damage and getting rewarded with xp/credits. Oh, since I missed that part, it's cute that you try to pretend I wouldn't know anything about conqs, as if having every other t10 BB (and most other t10s) wouldn't make me notice which BBs gets shot at by which other BBs. That you in particular would think the conq has low survivability though isn't surprising, given you how play it.

Could be, just trying to consider some options. Would probably be easier to just nerf HE fire chance on BBs overall.

The only way to properly reward "team play" is to have a person watching the games and giving scores. Spotting should be rewarded more though, but at the moment mechanics just means that if ships fire they get spotted by everything and thus everyone would share the spot exp. Also any CV would be getting the most of it.

Tbh what could more sensibly change is to reduce the xp/credits BBs overall gets from HE hits, and fires in particular (at least from main guns). Because it's one thing to have a BB that actually use HE effectively use it on you, but it just feels stupid to see some tirp spamming HE, doing negblible damage that actually hurts a team, but still gets mid to high levels of xp for it.

And your entire dishonest premise was based on similar stuff like you present here. As if Conquerors fire particularly much more on BBs than other BBs do (they don't), they're just far more likely to use HE (and fire) resulting in higher numbers (for higher rewards, but not neccessarily all that much higher effect at sinking ships). That's what you get when someone has a ridiculous bias toward one class of ship. I mean, someone is actually attempting to pretend that the Conq doesn't have a ridiculous potential to survive getting fired at?

Nice whine, want some cheese? /I mean, that line is as tired and old and unoriginal as the content in that post