Nechrom

Regarding the 5th weekly mission:

1) Exactly, as you won't be able to afford even half of all the items. 2) We'll get 5 weeks worth of missions as far as I know and there are supposed to be 5 missions each week, but the 5th mission is delayed due to technical difficulties. So the total possible diamond amount would be 1000 (500 + 5 x 100). 3) I would be very surprised if a company like WG couldn't afford to ship outside the EU. 4) Credits. I assume also the port slot, but I'm not certain.

As long as I can get my Katori. ( ˘ ³˘)♥

You might have to log out and log back into the site.

If you're not allowed to be a CV virgin in a tier 4 CV, then I don't know what to say.

But it's just play 10 battles, not win ten battles. I had to buy myself a tier 4 CV during Project R and win 10 battles.

A few of the permanent and all the weekly missions should be doable casually. Right?

Depending on when the weeks reset we might get an extra 80 potential diamonds. But I don't see how we could get the 1000 diamonds for the last personal goal.

This is going to be so much fun. I wonder if I'm going to be able to get both the Katori, Tachibana and Smith. Probably not, but I'll make an effort. Doing a quick calculation you should be able to get a maximum of 820 if the event runs until the end date. But if Project R was any indication, it won't.

It's up.

(｡´-д-)

All DDs got torpedo visibility buffs versus ships not using Target Acquisition System. BBs got a maneuverability nerf. Most CLs got range nerfs (which doesn't effect DDs anyway). What am I missing here? If we go further back we can start listing even more buffs and nerfs in both directions, but I don't see the point since I was referring to this patch in the post you quoted.

The example was to show how extremes are not relevant. There are a ton of assumptions we need to be able to make to gauge the performance of a ship, that's why we use averages so we can ignore a lot of unknowns. Naturally, but the IJN DDs are the ones getting nerfed and the CAs getting buffed (with radar, more sonar range etc). So apparently WG doesn't agree with that and tries to fix a MM problem by literally making people want to play a certain ship less.

And that one time when you accidentally left the car on idle the whole day it consumed even less fuel. It's a pointless metric in any situation because you don't know if that extreme result happens only one time or happens frequently and that's the information which actually matters unless you're in some sort of competition where only your highest result matters.

Then your definition of a ship's potential or capability is completely worthless in basically every discussion. The maximum damage or score a ship is capable of is completely useless information. But that's just a strawman created by trolls. No one (as far as I know) is saying that the Shima is "unplayable" or anything to that effect. It's just been heavily nerfed without previously being OP.

There we go. I was wondering when the cherry picking would start.

To avoid repeating myself:

The torpedo visibility reduction in 5.2 was 100-500 m. The mod gives +20% and the later buff to Vigilance was +5%. If we assume the 500 m reduction was given to the Shima, then it got its effective torpedo visibility buffed by a whopping 25 m. A ship is being played less? Let's directly nerf another ship based on that. What a great idea! Just like it's an awesome idea to directly nerf a badly performing ship, because a lot of players use it and the matchmaker freaks out. Blanket nerfs to BB agility doesn't just effect the Shima. Hell it doesn't just effect DDs. I could also bring up earlier blanket buffs to ship maneuverability, but I (unlike some) realize that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Clearly you know exactly what you're talking about.

This is rock bottom right here. Time to discredit based on forum avatar? I wish you luck in life.

The same patch that added 20% torpedo spotting to the Target Acquisition System mod. Great buff to the Shima. I think you're onto something here. If WG just continues to systematically nerf every ship one by one every patch, then it's a "win for the whole community" every patch. WG, hire this man.

The difference between good players trying to get as close as possible with 15-20 km torpedoes and being forced into 8 km range, I think should be quite obvious. Getting that close, while being the desired outcome, is not the norm. With 15-20 km torps you had other options and could work on a larger scale from scattergun to precision strike.

Easier to what? Stay alive? Of course. Get any good results? Hell no. I want you to go to your favorite WoWS stat aggregator site and compare the average XP of all the tier 10 ships, at any point in time. I'll wait here for you to come back with your findings.

Yes, it's easy to play (and it still is), I've never said differently. But it's not easy to do well in (now even harder). Tunnel visioning BBs will still get hit by the long range torps and the other players will continue to have no issues. No change there. But now in order to even have your torpedoes reliably reach your target you need to sail your torpedo-barge within 8 km of your target. And if you're blocked from doing so, tough luck, because that's literally the only viable thing you can do.

Bad players can always get good results with luck, in any ship. I would argue that a bad Shimakaze player can't get truly good results unless they face AFK players. What they can get is some damage reliably through sheer quantity of RNG spam. If you believe that the Shimakaze helps you get better results than other ships, then I'd like to know what makes you come to that conclusion. Because statistically it's not very good and hasn't been for a veeery long time, way before every other player seemed to own one.