Figment

So you are saying no BB ever kills CV in this game? Stick that argument where the sun doesn't shine please. CVs are extremely vulnerable to everything as soon as they are spotted and within range and line of sight of ANY unit to the point they may not even launch air due to fires, yes, before that they have a striking advantage, but it is in principal no different from having to dodge incoming shell fire from ships that outrange you. Actually it is: it takes a CV much longer to get the same damage output and it is vulnerable far longer if it misses and it can generally be made to miss and you can shoot down the "shells" before they deal damage. CVs are relatively easy to deal with if you can ensure panic attacks, whereas no other unit suffers from panic spreads. Of course that people coordinate badly is not the fault of carriers, but of their opponents. If you play CVs you will notice that ir is generally the enemy's bad players that allow you to make a huge impact: these players tend to leave other players alone to be picked off on important flanks. They won't make their AA cruisers slow down to stay with other ships that have been targeted and tried to keep up with their AA cruisers. They don't try to optimize their AA special near CV aircraft, instead they will run from them in fear for themselves. Etc etc. And yes a lot of times the CVs on your team have no idea how to use their fighters to protect your team, or just use them to protect themselves. Especially bad IJN CV captains don't trust their weaker fighter squadrons and tens to use them for stalling enemy fighters during a strike. Instead of trying to take out approaching bombers and deal with fighters defensively near own ground AA. A lot of things contribute to making the class seem OP, but you can render them virtually useless if your team plays right.

Realistic? You want... REALISTIC? - Magic consumable for instant ship repairs from torpedoed hulls to broken rudder, engine, turrets, torpedoes, you name it. - Magic consumable to put out ship wide fires (or kitchen fires, depending on usage) and flooding. - Hitpoints - Hitpoints restoration consumeable - Randomly assigned ranges of ships based on strengths/weakness game balance creation - Up to 10x higher accuracy than in reality (and still considered too RNG by bad players who don't understand the principle of inter-unit balance and think they should counterstrike quickscope one hit kill while bunnyjumping in a turn) - Random fleet setups by classes - Equal fleet setups by classes and number - Quickly disappearing fog - Quickly reloaded and launched aircraft - Magical temporary sonar that doesn't always work - Magical temporary AA effectiveness increase - Magical range increases of weapons by installing "modules" - Random captain skills that can easily be forgotten by changing ships back and forth or magically allow the deck to be bigger for launching an extra aircraft in a wing - Aircraft wings never breaking formation or circling within AA range to dogfight Should I go on? Because really, a REALISM argument is going to convince a lot of people, right? The only thing that's important in a game is that classes are AS VIABLE AS OTHER CLASSES to play. Otherwise, everyone will play the classes or units that ARE viable and the game will become very one sided. You have any idea how hard it is to find a healer in most MMOs just because everyone wants to be the big damage dealer and what that does to raids? So to should you see the MM. All classes should be equals from a gameplay point of view in terms of being able to take each other out in duels through strengths and weaknesses.

Furutaka's are a tier lower than a Cleveland. Not higher. And they die to someone sneezing. Half health cruisers can be killed with a Farragut spamming HE or AP as well. What's your point? Shells can kill low health cruisers? Also, what's wrong with a Cleveland being able to kill a higher tier ship? Are you saying any player facing a ship of a higher tier when they are intended to per the matchmaker should have no chance whatsoever? Sounds like the only thing you're proving is: "it's working as intended: lower tiers CAN compete, even if they're driven by bad captains". Please do realise: your Cleveland stats are significantly worse than mine. In fact, it's FAR worse than most of the people in this thread. Yet you claim you're doing MUCH better than other people. I've also played Pensacola and New Orleans in CBT, they were MUCH better ships in my experience.

He claims he can kill any cruiser "easy", yet he can't since his average in a Cleveland is lower than the hitpoints of the ships he's talking about. I'm sorry, but stats make a very good point here. Clearly he's unable to cope with the units at, below and above his tier, otherwise his output would be much higher. His entire argument hinges on his claim about the amount of damage and ease with which he can do with a Cleveland, so to say it's irrelevant is rather silly, isn't it? You do realise you're violating the EULA since you're not actually allowed to have more than one account per player?

Uhm. No, The game is not dieing hard. Anyone could predict regardless of what game it is that the population will dwindle over time after a quick start. The amount of people at the starting months is usualy the most a game sees. This game isn't even live yet, so all it is losing is testers (a lot of whome probably went through most the ships before in CBT only to grind them again during OBT, which gets old with the little content at present). The game is far from finished, but that's always the case with a work in progress release. Spelling doomsday now is ludicrous. I've been playing PlanetSide from 2004 to 2010, it launched in 2003. People said the game was dieing after one particular expansion, but the population sustained a decent fight for 5 more years, despite there not being ANY marketing or content generation of note (the dev team eventually consisted of one single PART-TIME developer for a few months, while the rest of the team either quit, was layed off or was put to work on EverQuest II and other titles. And whatsmore, that game needed at the least 150 players per side, for THREE sides, rather than 12 for two sides (!). And 150 a side was really too few already for the tactical world conquest side of things (basically needed double that per server all in one continuous battle). You want dieing? Try a slow death with a population starting around 70K and 5-7 servers, and slowly dropping to 4K and one server as people grew more and more desillusioned with the company not addressing cheats or adding content (which we paid E.10 and later even 12 per month for! Yeah. WE HAD TO ACTUALLY PAY A SUB FOR "CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT"...), rather than the game itself. Then we got the sequel game FOR FREE while people still had to pay subs for the 10 years old game... Took them a year to make it free. What do you think THAT did for the population? This game is far from that badly managed, it isn't even officially launched live yet. You can't spell doom now. It will take at least 8 years for the pop to go down and even then it will probably be one of the only games in the genre. So it will continue to appeal new players.

Every game has a natural decline from launch, I've seen a lot steeper. The trick is to get new players or keep them busy with content. The amount of content in WoWS is rather limited. Maps are so few in number they're very repetitive. The amount of lines you can play are only a few and except from some torps or cannon number and range, the gameplay is pretty much the same and repetitive. So expect steady declines which require frequent promotions to keep fresh blood come in.

For someone who isn't jealous and doesn't care you spend a lot of time insulting and trivialising people who do better than you and go out of your way to dismiss their results as being a sign of their current capacity with respect to others...

There have been plenty of battles in war where one side made so many blunders or made such a rash decision, they walked right into a trap and got slaughtered without hardly doing anything back. This is simply what happens when untrained monkeys go to war and don't think they need to communicate, listen or coordinate to other players, while the other side does.

As said, depends on how much you spam.

You have no idea where the AP damage was located. So randomly giving that would be silly. Besides, the holes would be relatively small in comparison to a torpedo, so flood damage is a bit much from AP. Even then, if you do get a good hit with AP on DD, you already deal 30%-100% damage. Only takes one citadel hit (which isn't always as rare as people think...).

I got accused of lighting up a Gremy who followed my Minekaze. Blamed my AA for being on (it was off, turned it on after being discovered to chase it off while I popped smoke, then turned it off again, the guy sailed straight into an enemy Nicholas and Furutaka, but had already used his torps due to spamming them blindly. Obviously I killed the Nicholas and Furutaka later in two single strikes... But he kept ranting at me for being a loser who makes him and other teams lose, asked him how big the chances were of me looking up his stats and finding a 45% winrate player. Did. And guess what: 45.18%. Only noobish thing I've done was grind the Nagato to 37K while forgetting I still had to purchase the 22K C-hull... >.<" That added AA would have been lovely in some matches!

Zao is not the most accurate cruiser. Lower tiers have really decent hitrates. Take my St Louis at 40%. Got several other ships over 38%. Some I spam with and only have 30% with.

Quick is relative. 20 minutes is slow. 5-12 minutes is quick. 15 is normal.

I would say, depending on how much you spam at ranges you're not sure you'll hit something with a BB, that based on own experience: Ship class Bad hitrate Mediocre hitrate Good hitrate Battleships < 22% 23 - 26% > 27% Cruisers < 30% 31 - 37% > 38% Destroyers < 35% 36 - 44% > 45% Torpedoes < 5% 6 - 9% > 10%

If your problem is BBs, then you're showing your broadside too much. Angle away from battleships more, mostly show your stern. Only get in close for torpedo strikes and at that point try to keep an island in between you and the BB. Otherwise, stay at your max range.

Jealous person in denial is jealous in denial.

What I'm saying is that you probably get a limited array database for captains per player and once you delete one, it is removed from your array and they can't check.

Well I try not to make assumptions about the enemy team. Only takes one to take them by the hand or make a stand. If you lose momentum, you just get cornered and pincered with that strategy, so having a rear guard helps a lot.

The fact that it can work doesn't mean it's a huge gamble based on the assumption that your team is not full of cowards that stay out of the other zone.

Thing is you can proabably claim you had a certain level commander even if you didn't if they don't keep records of such things.

A lot of people think that tiers are a representation of player progression (it only really changes the units you encounter and in some cases the difficulty level in handling) and that experience points represent experience earned. But experience is a learning process. Experience points are a grind process. They're two different things that a lot of people confuse. Grind gains people actual experience through repeating gameplay at typically lower difficulty levels. However, if they always do the same things, if they don't experiment and if they don't try to understand the game itself or learn from their and other mistakes or they're simply not capable or willing to get better due to attitude or other mental issues, they can still gain experience points without gaining experience. EDIT: Oh and btw triggerhappy, it is a really stupid idea to just hand over the zone to the other team on that map. It makes far more sense to have your team group up around the zone you already have than to forego it in the hopes you MIGHT take over the other team's zone if you want to join your teams together. Even then, it's better to have a defensive fight over the base (defense requires fewer units, you mostly must make sure they don't get into your zone to stall your points and can control angles and corners) and push for the other or simply have the other section play for points by sinking ships one by one.

Not entirely true. It is really helpful to know which ships are spotted and how healthy they are. Those out of acquisition/view/render range I really like info about. But yes, a lot of communication is communicating common sense to others.

http://worldofwarships.eu/en/community/accounts/525151639-/#tab=pvp/account-tab-overview-pvp ^ Hey OP, do not listen to that guy either. He has no idea what he's doing outside of IJN CV. Oh irony.

Not everyone is a Yamato and has 97K to burn through. You should deal most damage with the torp hits, but can easily deal 20K damage with flooding / fires if you attack in two waves of mixed units.

Vulgarny, one last chance to make a point, otherwise just find my nice ignore space. HINT: REREAD WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE AS A COMMENT BELOW IT. And if you really want to argue that having more squadrons doesn't enhance your ability to crosshatch and keep stuff burning/flooding, then you're just not as good as you think you are. Do you have any idea how much damage you deal by flooding per match out of that average of yours? Because I get the idea you don't when you say you don't deal more flooding damage than on a US CV, which gets one big strike opportunity (or two smaller) opposed to two big or three smaller at the higher tier IJN. I'm under the impression you got your scores by spamderping aircraft at single targets by overwhelming AAA, but completely fail when you have to manage actual threats that can cancel you out if you fail to properly engage.