AgarwaenME

So? As soon as you get put on fire on your superstructure location, then the fire chance for any proceeding hit to that location is ZERO. Throw in regular captain skills and upgrades, and that 50%~ chance for the first hit is even lower.

/Bbaby-bingo card

So you're fine with people manipulating the MM?

tldr for you then: BBs dominate other surface ships both in damage done, and in survivability.

That's wrong on nearly every level, all of which have already been presented in this thread.

Overpriced crap fits perfectly in the warhammer theme.

A full year of premium (rebated) when I'd already started to get so sick of ridiculous grind events that I barely played at that point. Sims beta pack (after already being in the beta). Barely played it after beta. Other prems I've bought, I bought on the cheap side and got my value out of, like the blyska, or are still enjoying.

This entire thread is about BBs, with survivability being a mayor factor. Thus pointing to HOW they survive or if they're supposed to have higher survivability is entirely beside the point to whether they HAVE more survivability.

Ah.. "but they're supposed to". Such a nice argument until you start applying it to all those other ships that might hurt you because they're "supposed to". Also entirely besides the point, as people here are complaining that BBs are so easy to kill, and the statistics are only being brought up to show they're full of s****. You then saying "but they're supposed to" thus does absolutely diddly squat to counter the point that BBs aren't in fact so easy to sink.

PLAYERS learn, not ships. Thus that COULD (not even would) only apply if people only played ONE class of ship. However most plays a wide range of ships. The cause and effect you're missing is the "cause BBs have long range, repairs and armour, and thus CAN stay at range or survive if closer".

So you're admitting that you won't be swayed by arguments. I however will be, if facts are provided. Problem is, those arguing with you are arguing with opinion, ignoring glaring facts and throwing around hyperbole.

At least you're admitting to having no arguments. So that's a start.

EULAs are worth about: on the other hand they do get to decide what they want on these forums, even if it means they ruin their reputation

Someone who can't read his own stats?

You you, in this very thread, complains that a BB who let a DD get to within 6km would sink you. That's called hypocrisy son.

That only makes your lack of an argument worse. If YOU as an AVERAGE player does so much better in BBs.. then your entire point just gets worse. addendum: You say you don't consider yourself to be "leet".. however you consider yourself such a genius at the game that you can tell things are "wrong" even if every statistics shows you have no idea what you're talking about, and that every better player who tells you what can be done is wrong. If that's not your ego running away with you I dunno what it is.

Stats mean everything when you make claims that are patently false. Like how much HE dominates BBs in damage done. Your opinion however, means buggerall. And while I didn't say you "did so well" in BBs (I have higher standards than that), you play them more and do better than in your CA/CLs. And why wouldn't you be biased toward your prefered ships?

So, you think your own stats don't matter, you just want the ships YOU perform better in and plays MOST to get buffed... quel surprise. +edit, also of course, overall game wide stats says the same thing. So whatever your ideas is based on.. is simply wrong.

"BBs don't always delete CLs who gives that BB the ideal attack! THAT'S SO WRONG!!" "BBs aren't immune to DDs when they give them the ideal attack! THAT'S SO WRONG!!!!!!"

We literally point to statistics showing the average.

So.. why do you care so much that we point to how your own stats prove your attempted argument patently false?

Your problem still being. Your own stats prove you wrong. "buh buh it's hard to survive" - survives more "buh buh he/fire/torps do so much damage" - does more damage with AP This does not compute.

What complete bollocks. His "points" (based on nothing but opinion) was shown to be hypocritical from the actual facts relevant to the matter. The guy is a random nobody with an opinion. He complains that BBs are unplayable.. while he still mostly plays them. And he just outright lies about the comparative damage done. And those stats are far more relevant to your laughable attempt to put a 9 battle sample as comparable. You're whining that he's being "attacked", when all you do is take his words as fact. Before you do so, prove him right.