AgarwaenME

Funny how "feels" doesn't tell you the facts, just what you want to think to justify what you want to complain about isn't it?

How is winning more battles than you lose "no wins"?

You keep proving my point. BBs (or CA/CLs) don't "operate well" in the confines of being permaspotted and torped by a DD with sub 6km detection range. Planes are a counter to this stealth. And pretending you're in battles where an enemy CV is permaspotting you for 20 minutes? Sorry that's just hyperbole.

Faster and stealthier than the ships you're spotting is unfair? So you want to nerf every DD and CL at tier 4-5 too then? CVs at those tiers cannot attack DDs in smoke at all, and even if one can loiter above you that comes at the cost of not using that plane somewhere else (and forgoing reloading it) and depends on your own CV doing nothing to hinder him. You know, much like say any t5 BB against an isokaze, unless you friendlies to aid you against it you're at a huge disadvantage.

If you think sinking two top tier DDs+ is a "crap result" then you seriously need to look at what you're doing yourself.

Which they sorta did intitially. and which is what they usually do. This is their attempt to fix the screwup they already had with that ship. You should try to keep updated on the news.

What does the word "test" mean again? Nevermind how "one kill per attack" is just nonsense anyhow.

Some ships, well USN BBs mostly, also have an option in using the DMC "special" upgrade.

You claiming something doesn't make it a fact. Actually pointing at survival rates, which are facts tells us you're wrong. I'm not "blaming the BB class" either. I'm merely pointing out that BBs have more tools to stay alive, can way more easily survive taking damage and DOES survive more easily in battles. In fact it's fairly crazy to talk about a lot of BBs causing BB survivability to be an issue, as BBs themselves by far are the best tool to sink other BBs, and the increase in BBs coincides with even more passive BB play.

Wait what.. he's sold every ship to boost his way to t10 as quickly as possible.. and now he's crying that he can't only sit in a t10 forever and still make credits? Wow

Yes, baseless.. no worse.. entirely dishonest claims like yours is not something we'll stop getting, and people like you aren't capable of a constructive discussion. As already proven in this thread, BBs are overall dominating in survivability (CVs aside, for obvious reasons). And the reason they do are also pretty damn obvious, 300%+ effective hp, on top of armour and often very good speed and concealment, so claiming nonsense like what you claimed just shows you have no idea how the game, and the ships, work. It's particularly hilarious as you refer to those who wants everyone else nerfed, since the entire point at the moment is that ONE class has received 2 years of endless buffs and by far dominates the amount of crying on this forum

Basicly.. "statistics are inconclusive but my biased opinion is true". Because that's what you're serving up, opinion. And global stats like that is a TOTAL of all variables, and thus pretending BBs have a hard time surviving is clearly utterly bonkers. Hardly surprising coming from someone who says other classes have "more" ways to survive getting under fire, because everyone knows that armour, massive hp, massive repairs and in several cases very good concealment is less than, less armour, less hp, but slightly better manouverability and speed.

That's a nice parody of every excuse BBabies throw about to excuse themselves for not even attempting to take their ship into harms way. It's a parody right?

First of all, you're not speaking for every player, and certainly not me. As far as I'm concerned, the Enterprise (and every fleet CV really), any Fletcher class DD, Hippers, etc are just as historicly important and iconic as BBs who mostly did little to nothing to change the outcomes of either WWI or WWII. It's called not being simplistic in your mindset, and looking at the realities of warfare instead of being blinded by a hundred years old PR. Did I want to play some BBs because they were iconic (even those who were iconic yet did mostly nothing, like Bismarck or Tirpitz)? Certainly, but no more than Yorktown class CVs, IJN CAs or others. And sorry, but this is a nonsense excuse for BB numbers. It does not justify further buffs certainly, nor does it fix the actual issues with a massive BB overpopulation. Also it's amazingly easy to find threads full of complaints about "too many DDs" (even at times when BBs were already outnumbering them, hell you can find people right now who wants there to be a 2-3 DD per battle cap) and none defended them with "but people want to play those ships because history or whatever".

So.. blame the messenger. Typical false equivalency BS, "someone made fun of someone, so that means I'm justified in pretending we're talking about two equal positions, it matters nothing how one side is counterfactual, full of insults and generalizing, if people refer to them as Babies it automaticly makes everyone equal". How very trumpian. Pretty hilarious that a lot of those posts are years old even, and that you could find an equal amount of entire threads (including several of those you linked from) which are basicly brainless whining from people who refuse to understand that their issues aren't that BBs are underpowered/everything else is OP.

Because "pointless and nonconstructive overreaction" is the best descriptor of what people that get called this makes threads like. Actually constructive threads don't get this treatment, though with the position BBs have nowadays it's rather hard to make a thread about them that has any objective complaints about how they work because they've had more or less everything given to them over the last 2 years.

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. You're equating calling someone who's making a generic whine thread a baby, with people who refers to deadly diseases or worse. And in the latter case they're not specifying people who comes to complain about things that by any objective metric is low on the scale of threats against them, it's simply a complete hate for specific ship classes and the players who plays them. Ie, it's just a false equivalency.

The difference is between: A bad player. and A bad player who insists on calling everything else OP, and every player who sinks him a cheater, and for added effect blames the MM, or WG for "intentionally" making him lose for whatever reasons he can make up. Players who play poorly and tries to get better by asking for advice do not get called anything derogatory. Players who not merely plays poorly, but who due to their own inflated ego can't manage to understand that the issues they have are between the keyboard and the chair, and thus come here (or other places) throwing around accusations of cheats, hacks and OP whatever ships, while very frequently lacing those accusations with things like "[edited]" and worse.. yes they will get put in their place, and rightly so. If anything merely being called a baby might be the least derogatory thing you could use against them.

Except you keep proving my point. Lacking an actual comparison to the sort of player you get making complaints right out of the BBaby bingo card, you just invent them out of thin air. And outright lying (when it's not simply ignorance) is very much part of the set of tools BBabies use in their whining. If you don't want to be considered one of them, stop making up excuses for them and making false equivalencies. I play as much, or more BBs than most of the people making stupid nerf threads, but why would I feel insulted because someone who plays the same ships as me says something stupid? If you're so afraid of being called a BBaby, why defend those who very much deserve that description? Why not instead go to those threads and tell them their complaints are unwarranted? Thing is, people with warranted complaints regarding BBs do not get put into that bin. But then (again) those who can make warranted complaints also tend to be people who aren't nearly only playing BBs and who realises that there's another side to every balancing issue and thus aren't blankly demanding nerfs (or buffs) who would only make BB numbers (and advantages) worse.

Except comparing the sort of complaints you actually see tells you an entirely different sort of story. More than that, comparing the sort of people who make each sort of complaint tells you even more. People with a broad range of experience (all or most ship classes to high tiers) pointing at the current balance of ship types in games, actual balance between ship types, and how WGs changes are just making this situation continue and getting worse, is just not the same some guy with 70-80% of games played with BBs who spams the forum with generic "torps OP, fire OP" rants. Making up your own wanna be meme about other classes to pretend this is two comparable sides just tells us which category you belong to.

The difference is. There's no "DD player" who's asking for 100kn torps, nor was the complaints about the RL skill unique to people who mostly or only played DDs. And your insult towards CV players (besides the absurd idea you have about what CV players think they should be able to do, and how hilariously hypocritical you are when you think a CV should not be able to punish a bad BBaby, yet you feel justified in deleting a CA that does one error.. is very typical for your sort), just shows us one thing; you are a BBaby yourself.

Oh certainly, just like 2016 the "year of the CV" The amount of trust deserved in this regard is nill.

To be fair that's his job. It's not to make sense. It's not to be honest to players. It's to defend what can't be defended.

A "potential" against a target that has no torpedo protection, allows every torpedo to hit and where no plane is shot down at all. And doing it every 3-4 minutes at most. vs Any of the t10 BBs who have higher alpha from one salvo. Every 30 seconds. The choice by WG was also grounded on their spotting abilities (which is what CVs do in competitive play). Yes, CVs do have issues, *edited* A/lso, if a CV hitting 12 out of 12 torps, is something someone allows happen in a random battles, then they're already a potato. If someone allow this to happen while in a premade team, then I struggle to find a useable vegetable to compare them (and their entire team) to.

This basicly. If you can't field a non-potato CV.. hell if you can't field a non-potato set of BBs, DDs, and CAs, then a competitive mode is not for you in the first place.