AgarwaenME

You're not this dumb so stop pretending. While your amazing bias towards BBs isn't something new (without going to lengths in here about how), this is going beyond the pale. If something VERY RARELY sink you, but is your MAIN attack mode, then it's a nerf to you. If it makes your MAIN TARGET harder to hit, it's a buff to that target. CVs literally had to get defensive fire added to make up for the changes since it caused CV sniping to be the obvious tactic. And since then it's pushed CVs to prioritise the other main counter to BBs, ie DDs, since they can be attacked in the early game while BBs are nigh impossible (slightly depending on MM). BBs thus got indirectly buffed from both angles. And the ships that could easily drop concealment to stop getting stealth fired at, ie ships with lower detection range than the opposing ships stealth fire range, which was.. err every ship not a BB (and any BB who specced stealth) weren't even really a target by stealth firing ships to begin with. How hard the nerf hit these ships is fairly evident by how their relative results have shifted (just compare zao v DM now and then). Ie BBs sailing alone aren't grinded down as they could have been, and nothing much else changed. But this is somehow not a buff to BBs.. ye right.'' And pretending that losing BFT/AFT on low calibre CL guns, and losing fire chance from nerfed DE as a "buff to every single ship"? Nevermind the huge buff to FP, which basicly only BBs can afford to use (which is partly why DD and CAs got a small buff in how long fires last on them). All of these, and more mentioned by others, and more on top of that, are a death of a thousand cuts to everything that threatened BBs. And everything people like me predicted would happen, and would get worse (ie, more and more BBs, and BBs being played more and more from the rear) is happening.

Allied winter wins the prize for correctly predicting the skewed and biased reply. Suffice to say, it's just dishonest to pretend that nerfs to everything else isn't a buff to the one untouched class of ship.

We really could use some better statistics yes. Like each ships WR (even per map), most common ship comps (in each league). Even making those stats on a time scale to see how the meta changed (like how many clans blindly changed to 1 DD only after noticing so many top clans doing it).

How about mentioning: IJN torp nerfs? CV nerfs? Stealth fire removal? Captain skill changes that further weakened HE and fire, ie nerfs to AFT, BFT, DE and buffs to FP. All of which effectively are buffs for BBs, and huge ones at that.

To add to this. OPs overall WR over the last 3 days is ABOVE his account average. So to make up for a 10 loss streak, he's had either one massive win streak, or a lot of smaller win streaks. That's how you get statistical averages (and bell curves), and not from selectively picking a tiny sample to whine, cry and make up nonsense MM rigging claims. But when you pile biases based on your ego and observation on top of eachother you get threads like these.

Then if you let one ram you they played better and deserved to win.

Is it highly unlikely that everyone would? No. Is it highly likely that some person might get two on both of his first time getting the 3rd? Certainly. Could that person then extrapolate his one person sample size to be something universal? Definately. I tend to pick up the 3rd in weekends, or when doing CWs, and I lack hundreds of supercontainers for this to be in any way correct.

41% He's unlikely to have thought you that bad, so in a way he might be wrong I guess.

It's fairly common in CW at least, trading a 10% hp ship for a 50% hp ship can win battles. Even just baiting for a ram can cause an enemy to give you a broadside to finish him quickly.

Thing is, hp left shouldn't really affect it, since you're not dropping thousands of tons of mass as you get damaged. What should affect it is relative speed, mass of either ship and the angle and location where they hit. Ie, even a small DD could realisticly do a lot more damage if ramming the side of a BB than they do now, but two BBs scraping each others side would do way less. What seems to get people confused though, is that in game ships behave more like bumper cars and you don't actually get the idea how bloody hard it is to stop any large ship, even something "relatively" smaller like a DD, and that they carry a huge amount of momentum easily able to cause devastating damage. Youtube has a load of vids of different sorts of ships misjudging speed and direction when trying to dock, where you can see how "unrealistic" it is that any ship would merely stop against an obstruction with little damage done (besides doing a bit of math to see how much force it takes)

Nah, I doubt there's that many whiny BBabies .. or are there?

I have. and I haven't seen anything extraordinary. However I try to not go looking to confirm my biases. Especially given how you'd need a fairly large, and way larger than most players could ever play in a week, to get a statisticly significant picture just from your own games. And to add something to tobyjugs numbers, EVEN if we for a single week have a slightly higher DD population due to a mission, then that by itself is not in any possible way a reason to cap DDs to some absurdly stupidly low number, only to ask WG to stop making mission chains that only or mostly requires one ship type to finish.

* Selective use of "historical" when it suits you, ignoring how historicly WWII was all about CVs when it suits you. * Plays neither DDs, nor CVs, yet wants to cherry pick battles to not have them around... ignoring how this would also mean that CVs would be able to cherry pick battles without heavy AAA, DDs picking battles without radars or sonars, CAs picking battles without BBs etc etc etc. Try coop maybe? /someone bring out the BBaby bingo please.

First of all, there's no actual evidence for there being even remotely that many DDs even during this mission chain. And "atm" could mean today, this week, or this month, so contorting yourself to make his ridiculous claim appear even remotely true just make you seem desperate. Nor is a particular few days where you see a few more of a ship type at some tier in any way relevant to actual game balance or the overall spread of ships you see, nor would it make sense in any sort of way for WG to cap ship class numbers based on one weeks small change to to a mission they themselves added. If anything them adding such missions might very well be them actually trying to make more players actually play DDs to increase their ACTUALLY LOW numbers. Also, the question was, is he ignorant or lying, with the largest odds being on simple ignorance (fueled by observational bias). It's just amazingly galling that someone would continue to post claims like these after other players have linked to the actual numbers showing how this just cannot be.

It's easy to rest a case when one has none, at least you have that.

First of all. He did not merely say "last few days" (not that a few days worth of sample size is worth anything), nor did he merely say "in my games" or "in my observation". He made a statement about facts, which are entirely wrong, leaving the only two options him either being ignorant (even after tobyjug posted the actual numbers in this very thread) or intentionally lying, QED. *Edited

Again, the amount of DDs just aren't that high. *Edited

Again, these numbers for DDs simply ARE NOT TRUE. *Edited

When players cheat they mostly do so by letting a computer do the job for them. Any AI IS A COMPUTER, nor are they bound by the same rules as player, and doubly so for scenarios. Ie, an AI literally cannot "cheat", but often AIs will get other advantages to make up for every way it cannot compete with players at all.

Lets see.. Generic claim about DD population that's entirely contrary to actual numbers. Ridiculous claims about how many torps these mythical DDs would be able to fire. Ridiculous claims about the ranges on most torps. Ie, l2p issues and whiner issues.

Granted a lot of people have already explained your stupidity to you.. But just think of this, if ships were only made of metal, they would be bathtubs, not ships. Moving a ship requires fuel, moving parts require oil and grease. Guns require gunpowder and shells (both main guns, AAA, secondaries and small arms). And ontop there's loads of items made of rubber, wood, plastics etc etc.. and on top of that some metals will gladly burn if the temperature gets hot enough. /Indeed, one massive "unrealistic" part about the game is that AP shells (not bullets, learn the bloody difference) does not cause fires, and that fires have no other detrimental effect on ships than merely taking away hp while being able to be instantly extinguished.

Can a cruiser do it? Sure, can a BB? yes. Can a DD? Yes. Can a CV? Yes. Are either of those going to reliably do it at t7 or t8? Absolutely not. And cruisers aren't even at the high end of average damage at those tiers (there's ONE single t8 cruiser who's not averaging less damage than every t8 BB, and two t7 cruisers not getting beat by every t7 BB, one being the belfast and the other the flint, which due to how it's gained cannot be compared in the same way). Thus concluding that HE is the "meta" and implying that one can just farm 120k (already more than twice the average of the best t8 cruiser) to 200k (4 times the average value) requires a massive amount of contortion of facts. And if you make up numbers and by your own words, don't care if they're true, then that makes you a liar. QED. And no one is telling you that you have no right to be posting, but you have NO right to post and NOT BE CORRECTED ON BLATANTLY FALSE BS, nor a right to not be mocked when refering to ships doing things they factually are entirely unable to do and even complaining how easy it is for them to do this thing they cannot do at all. IE stop writing false BS and people won't have to point out it's false BS. As for "civilised" conversations. It's not a "civilised" conversation to enter into it with ignorance, then cry when opinions based on ignorance gets picked apart. A "civilised" post could have been "I seem to get burned down a lot, is this just observational bias or might I be doing something wrong?". You need to come at this from the position you yourself admit you're in, one having little knowledge and not fill this hole of ignorance with whatever you make up on the spot and then whine that people point out that you're ignorant about facts.

So when you make up numbers, we shouldn't "take them literally"... numbers.. aren't to be taken "literally".. wow. So basicly what you're saying is, "I just make up whatever I want". There's a word for people like these; liars. And the ONLY RN CL that has HE is the Belfast (at tier 7), a premium. And if your knowledge is this miniscule, then you might not want to toss out claims based on having little to no knowledge. And lol what.. you see "6-10 DDs and roughly 8 BBs".. you do realise that "6-10" is the same as "roughly 8" right? Besides which one can easily check the actual amounts of each ship class brought to battles, so what you "see" isn't relevant at all. Never mind how you as already noted, have no qualms about just making up numbers so whatever you say on ship numbers should not be trusted at all. And if you can't handle having facts pointed out to counter you making crap up (which is where YOU make this forum like the wot forums) then don't come here.

Because Chapayevs and Atlantas have smoke, and Leanders have HE? And server wide averages for these ships are 120k+? The answer here of course is, no, no they don't, and no these ships aren't dominating in damage done. So the answer is. No, this is not the meta. At your tiers the meta is more "10+ BBs per match, 3/4s who will sit in the rear whining that if they go closer than 20km they might get a fire on them". /someone bring out the BBaby bingo please.