Nechrom

Yes. Rock wants paper nerfed, I get that. If you take 4 DD torpedoes you failed at the game and need to look at what you did wrong and don't do it again. If DD DPM actually scaled with tiers, enemy health and firepower, then I'd probably agree with you. DDs don't really NEED more than say 3-4km of a visibility margin. Super long range torpedo trawling is really boring and to be completely honest doesn't require a lot of skill, but it also doesn't give much return either. Throw the RNG dice and hope the torpedoes don't get spotted by enemy DDs, CV planes, CA planes, CAs etc before reaching the target and also pray that the target is still broadside to your torpedoes at that point. But torpedo range is LITERALLY the only thing that scales with higher tier torpedoes. If torpedoes got noticeably faster, had higher DPM and/or didn't get higher detectability at higher tiers we would be in a spot where we could pull in the torpedo range. The Shimakaze has two things: range and alpha strike volume. Everything else is crap compared to lower tiers. And let's not forget that the Shimakaze is still leaps and bounds ahead of the other special type destroyers (tier 7+).

While this might make the situation better for BBs (didn't know there was an issue there) it doesn't help DDs because it forces them to hang close to the enemy for extended periods of time to do damage. While higher tier DDs definitely need higher torpedo reload speed than now, they don't need twice the speed and they don't need it at the cost of per hit damage. DDs still need to be hit-and-run/ambush ships, not being forced to spam torpedoes for an extended time to have a chance at doing any damage. I'll promise you that most BB players wouldn't really care that the torpedoes do less damage if they instead had twice the number of torpedoes coming their way. Players in general (BB players especially) are deathly afraid of taking any damage even when they can repair it easily. So they will still try and dodge torpedoes just as much and with twice the number of torpedoes... well you get the picture. The solution is I'm afraid just dealing with it. Like DDs have to deal with not being able to move into CA view range unless they want to get vaporized. If a BB wants to charge into DD territory without any support from friendly DDs or CAs, then he better be ready for the torpedoes and doing his best to be hard to predict.

If WG is something, it's the opposite of elitist. Is there a word for that?

Unfortunately not. The most powerful one still within the time frame would be the Öland, but that's basically a Błyskawica with less guns. Sweden doesn't have anything from WWII above tier 6.

Sure, but I'd be more interested in ship customization. Being able to buy historical "skins" of actual ships in the specific class, complete with ship name and everything. Kind of like a premium-light version of the regular ships.

I use the fast torpedoes because those extra 5km of range is of questionable value, especially with slow torpedoes.

Neither. Never use free XP to unlock new ships. Save your free XP to get necessary ship upgrades. Skipping the stock grind with free XP does 3 things: 1) It makes the rest of the grind more efficient, 2) It makes the grind more enjoyable and 3) Unlocking hulls contributes to the progression towards the next ship as well.

Some players have issues with switching from the small fast firing guns to the larger slower ones. They always complain about the Furutaka, Pensacola, Colorado and Nagato, without fail. Even while these ships are not bad at all, just requires a different approach. If my collected experience with online vehicle shooters (WoWS, WoT, WT, AW etc.) have taught me anything, it's that if you have a problem with a vehicle it is 90% of the time a player issue. Sure there are better and worse vehicles, but in almost every case it's not to the degree that players make it out to be. If you decide for yourself that a vehicle is underpowered then you generally stop trying to figure out how to make it work, creating the issue yourself.

People play for different reasons, even the reasons to "advance" up the tiers are many. You could play higher tiers for the challenge of facing player with more battles played and consequently more experience. You could also continue up the tiers just to get your hands on an increasing number of different ships to be able to use. You might even have your sights set on a specific ship that happens to be at a high tier (Yamato, Iowa, Shimakaze etc). You might see the ships as achievements for playing and you know how people can be about those. There are players that don't actually focus on progressing up the tiers and just find a lower tier ship they like and play that. All approaches are valid. Personally I'm partly interested in having loads of ships to switch between and also experience the varying play styles that the different tiers and ships have to offer. Additionally I don't think I'd be content with only playing lower tiers as there are definitely a higher concentration of beginner there.

Clearly a couple of small pictures you dislike on the mission screen is worth whining about nowadays. I guess WoWS is doing pretty well if we're at that point.

The Mogami is in a difficult position where you start to regularly take huge 30-50% health hits at random without really doing much wrong. Combined with having no repair ability, you are suddenly forced to be extremely careful with your cruiser. The best tip I can give you is to stay on the defensive until you have a good idea of which enemy flank is weakest and just go there.

^ This The only thing that matters is what gives you more enjoyment. Which is completely subjective.

Still grinding credits and dailies waiting for the last day, so I waste as little free XP as possible. Will probably get the Ibuki and Kagero.

I like the ship. The low range is made up for by actual okay speed which other low range BBs lack. The turret traverse speed is pretty good and it takes very little HE damage.

As long as you accept that; what is the "lesser evil", is completely subjective then that's fine. The only way to objectively measure which is the better option is to somehow find out which impacts the collective playerbase the least negatively. And that is as far as I know impossible barring sudden huge advances in mind-reading technology.

I'm not saying winning should be irrelevant. One way to solve it would be to reward individual actions which leads to victory instead of the victory itself. Some of this is already rewarded like damage and capping points but there are still so many things you do while working towards a victory, which in itself currently isn't being rewarded. You could also scale reward multipliers by where you place compared to the other players. So for example instead of the entire winning team getting 50% more XP, you could give the top 8 players on the winning team the full bonus along with the top 3 on the losing team and then scale it down from there the further down on the list you place within your team. That way you incentivize players to keep trying to perform even when a battle seems lost. As a bonus you get less salty players and the "play for fun" players can continue to "play for fun".

To further confirm the importance of modding to me I just had a realization after re-installing Aslain's mod pack, having not used it for almost a month. Something as simple and as irrelevant to the actually gameplay as custom KanColle ship portraits in the port makes such a huge difference to me and I'm not even that big of a fan. It just helps to make each ship seem unique and interesting when many of them really aren't from a gameplay perspective. That's just my personal experience and other players will have their favorite mod that adds more for them than it really has any right to. Many players who argue for a mod-free game, I think, doesn't get that. They just see mods as tools. And while many of them certainly are, they also add so much more enjoyment to the game beyond their apparent usefulness.

^ This In any game where a majority of your rewards are held hostage by random players on the internet, many of which are "just playing for fun", you will eventually get to a point where it's too much. Depending on the personality of the player he'll either rage in chat, close the game, uninstall, vent on the forums or a combination of those things. The key, which WG keeps missing, is to reward good individual play over being given better teammates by the matchmaker. I must confess though that WoWS is still miles ahead of WoT in this regard, imperfect as it may be.

It all depends on how broad of an audience you want to target. Pink ships and non-violence might open up that elusive kindergarten market. That's of course an extreme example, but I hope you see my point. They could do countless different things for just as many different reasons. The question is why the departure from the default state and perhaps more importantly why this very picky-choosy approach. There is currently no way you could define the current "policy". I could respect it if it was a clear well defined line that they've drawn.

Just the way they currently are. Looking at the offending mods and making sure that they stop functioning in the next update. The next step, which I don't think WG will do, is to launch the game together with an external application to detect cheats so that they can combat non-mod cheats as well.

I'm saying that the argument is between just letting all graphics be historical (the default) or making a specific targeted exception. It's not two equal options, because if you argue that then every other random option also becomes just as valid, including painting all ships pink and firing nerf shells.

The historical flag comes with the historical ship. It's the default. The choice is either remove it or do nothing.

Time to pull out this one again:

Except the swastika in that form was only ever used in one context during a short period. The rising sun flag on the other hand was used well before Japan started doing questionable things abroad and is still used to this day.