Ubertron_X

In contrast to OP and never using a full secondary build (no sec targeting mod or manual targeting) I found the FdG the best ship of the line because in comparison to Bismarck the manoeuvrability is still ok, and in comparison to GK it is quite godlike (the GK has a lot more firepower of couse but I despise the loss of manoeuvrability more than the increase number of guns). It is a super tanky BB because of the excellent deck and all around armour and if you consider the secondaries as what they are, i.e. just the secondary weapons, it's quite an improvement over an also not full secondary build Bismarck because of increased HP and caliber of guns (now finally being able to overmatch some for the tankier cruiser bows). Some people may now ask themselves, why is this guy playing German BB's without full secondary spec? The reason behind is that at that time my other German BB the Tirpitz did not work well or require the full secondary build and I shared the captain in between those two ships. In addition I really think that T8 is peak time for full secondary builds (used it in Bismarck for some time but used a free reskill before I switched to FdG), as there is almost no range increase in between T8 and T10 secs but the fighting ranges in between ships increase greatly in those tears. So if you where to utilise a full secs build at T10 you will have to be nearer the enemy team than "usual", thus being more exposed while doing so and getting focused fired easily. And this is exactly what I think what OP is experiencing.

Afaik no, so my best guess is that you need to ask one of the mods to do so.

Search function?

Though I do not doubt at all that WG has a cr*pload of data to analyse, however almost every large amount of statistical data is subject to interpretation. And in most cases one can easily interpret the same base data one way or the other, depending on where the focus of the analysis is put. So while most people do not believe somebody is deliberately telling us lies they (me including) may still have concerns that the data gathered might not have been interpreted correctly. In order to calm down those people not only the (supposed) result of the analysis needs to be disclosed, but also how it was done. So was is just a simple check on the numbers of destroyers versus the team win rate or did the analysis also brake things down on a much more detailled level by taking into account things like game mode, number of radar ships in the enemy team, number of Russian destroyers and their distribution within those teams etc. etc.

While I have no doubt about stats averaging out once more players reach the higher tiers, in most other games the respective gaming pieces are indeed balanced on the performance of the top 5% (competitive) players...

SBMM is a double edged sword. Though I do not disagree that SBMM should in theory lead to closer and more tense battles, I really do appreciate the randomness of the mm, especially if I just want to play to relax (its a game after all, no tournament). And if MOBA's with SBMM told me one thing it is that playing against yourself is no way to relax, it is more like hard work, including a lot of stress and shaking hands after especially close rounds. If SBMM were to come for all game modes the game would probably depart from its current "casual" approach and I am not sure if I would like that much.

Apart from SBMM (which I am not especially fond of) I for one would be really grateful if WG could improve their damn matchmaker, even if still only taking into account ships alone. A couple of examples: * Take a look into "low tier" DD matchmaking in any given battle. Within a single battle usually the "high tier" DDs are mostly somewhat matched, however the low tier DDs in that battle are usually not matched at all, which can create a lot of imbalance, especially regarding DD scouting ability. E.g. Udaloi, Akizuki, Mahan vs. Fletcher, Kagero and Leningrad or even worse Gearing, Kiev vs Z-52, Benson, Benson. * Balance radar capable ships. I have had many domination games where the enemy not only had more and "better" DD (see first point) but also a lot more radar capable ships (e.g. 5 vs 2). Nice uphill battles all of them. * Adjust "matchmaking weight" for any single ship! A team with 3 Scharnhorsts on a big map is not exactly comparable with a team with 3 Colorados. A Kutusov is not comparable to a New Orleans and a Belfast is not comparable to a Yorck. * Adding to the above and given the current meta stop "balancing" teams around CA. It's always fun if the enemy team has more BB and more DD and you got compensated with 2 low tier CA (e.g. 5/3/4 vs 4/5/3). etc.

I fully support the "kill the new kill sound" movement...

Though I do not at all concur with the statement that a competent CV player can kill whomever he wants, all screenshots showing high plane kills on non-CV ships usually only show that there are a lot of incompetent CV players.

Every BB right now:

General effects are much better, however I dislike the broken glass bottle new kill sound...

British BB's incomming? i.imgur.com/CVymGCd.gifv

This is where all those shiny new BB's are being summoned for the RN BBcalypse!

You mean the two ships on each side who usually manage to fall to the big guns within the first couple of minutes? (sorry man, I am totally with you, but I just could not resist the irony)

My reaction when I meet (more than 3) clan members in any single battle (1:47 to 1:49).

CV's need to be in game for historic reasons, but mostly also as a balancing tool for other classes (scout DD, provide work for CA, sink BB). The thing is that CVs need to be in every battle in order to make certain ship builds and captain skills viable. It's no fun running a full AA setup as either DD, CA or BB, only to encounter CVs in every 10th battle, which means having wasted equipment slots and skill points in the remaining 9 battles. There is a reason why many of my cruisers (and I have no doubt that other players decide similar) run hydro instead of AAA, as you will bumb into DDs and other smoke capable ships in almost every single battle, whereas the presence of CVs is a big gamble.

Even without taking player skill into account the matchmaker and ship placement algorithms could be improved. There is absolutely no reason to create battles with 2 DDs and 1 radar capable ship in one team and 3 DDs and 5 radar capable ships in the other on a 3 cap domination map, or to spawn divisioned CV's in the front line or spawn divisioned DDs on one side of the map.

WoT had gold ammo from the very start and it was very pay to win, so they made it available for credits, which in turn absolutely wrecked their game balance (and still is today). So I am quite glad that WG seems to have learned their lesson and will not introduce it to WoWs.

The thing is that the presence or absence of CV's change the gameplay for everyone in that battle, and for better or worse fully depends on the individual preference of each player! Some players prefer standard battles and huge formations of ships (which admittedly is more about teamwork while some may still call it lemming trains or murder blobs), while others prefer domination mode which somewhat favours skirmish battles with just a handful of ships scattered all over the map (which I think is more about individual skill). And this is something that is currently not adding up very well. If all random battles that a CV is in automatically were standard battles I (and hopefully others too) would not have any problem with the "just group up and laugh at the CV" line of argumentation as this is the natural gameplay for that mode anyway (and even then there always will be a ship that is at the very edge of said tight formation, due to speed difference or evasive action, and most likely eligible for a strike nonetheless). As long however as multi-cap domination random battles are part of the game and the necessity to somehow separate the fleet is part of the mode itself I can not fully support said line of argumentation about massing AA to negate a CV's presence. At least not until WG does proper tutorials and gets their class balance restored (AA strength in between CA and BB).

Ok, yes and no to many points. Comming to the last point first, yes I do not play T10 much because I don't like the gameplay, however please acknowledge that you don't actually have to play T10 CVs yourselves to be able to compare their effectiveness versus your ships. For example if I compare my experiences in a fully AA spec'ed Montana vs fully AA spec'ed North Carolina I can easily see that high tier CV's are much stronger in their respecive environment (which is not fully accountable to AA alone of course). In the later one planes almost can't touch me whereas in the first one I am "lucky" if I survive the first strike (little exaggeration here but I think you will get my point). Also though I agree that a CV should be able to solo any ship it should also require considerable ressources to do so, and I have the general impression that in T9+ it does not. What does a high tier CV care about 10 lost planes if the payload got delivered. Ever seen a T10 CV's that is not a total potato plane reserve depleted? I haven't. On the other hand, how many Zao's can a Yamato solo before HP are depleted? And talking about teamwork in a game with random players in random ships in a random setup in a random gamemode is quite moot. And even in the rare occasions that people ARE supporting each other you can easily become prey even when you did nothing wrong. Oh the 8,5km AA Minotaur you teamed with gets spotted and randomly nuked from 5 opportunistic BB's from all over the map (not to help the CV of course but because cruiser you know) and you are suddenly stripped of the 2nd AA umbrella? Have fun with the incomming CV squads now. Of course you can argue that it was "teamwork" on the enemy team that caused this, however in random battles it it way harder to coordinate defense vs CV strike than to coordinate surface anti-ship attacks. So my verdict still stands, playing high tiers with a good CV vs a bad CV is like playing a game of football (also a team game) with a midget goalie on your team and a golden glove goalie on the enemy team. No matter what you do and how good you play you will always concede more goals than you can score yourself.

Though I dont think that CVs need their own game OP has a point about skill gap and individual player influence in a given battle. However please mind that CV gameplay severely changes throughout the tiers so any general statement about CV gameplay will always be wrong. My subjective impression over 7k battles: Tier 4 and 5: AA is week but CV can only autodrop, so any WSAD capable player will most likely be able to migrate most of the damage. AS Bouge is a strange outlier that can somewhat dominate other CVs because of the small map sizes for those tiers, but nothing that can't be overcome. Tier 6 and 7: AA is becomming gradually stronger but WSAD evasion gets more and more difficult due to number of squads and introduction of manual drop. Tier 8: AA is perhaps strongest in relation to CV strength, however if played correctly CVs now have the number of quads, planes and plane reserve to cope with it most of the time. Tier 9 and 10: AA power declines in comparison to CV strength as number of squads can easily overwhelm almost any single ship, regardless of AA rating as planes are suitably fast end have enough HP to carry through. Also plane reserves are plenty and you wont be low tier anymore most of the time, further increasing plane durability. Personally I don't mind CV power in tiers 4 to 8, however I agree with OP that CV's in tier 9 and 10 (and only in tier 9 and 10) and especially when captained by a skilled player have too much influence over the course of the battle in comparison to the remaining other 22 players.

DD divisions are not necessarily a bad thing. Bad DD players are.

Please do the HP numbers in Zao equivalents, else everybody gets confused.