Kartoffelmos

Alpha Tester
  • Content count

    1,256
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2881

1 Follower

About Kartoffelmos

Profile Information

  1. I seriously doubt that anyone on the receiving end of a detonation will describe the experience as funny. Detonations don't bring anything to the game (why do you get flags to prevent them from happening if they are so important?) and that is a problem. If the developers decided to let ships suffer random engine failures or crew illnesses, that would also serve no purpose except to frustrate the players.
  2. No, not really. It's just that people expected the "summer sale treatment" (where only the premium shop bundles were discounted and not the ships in the in-game tech trees) and became disappointed. When you purchase a ship that you currently own with real money, you are compensated with the current tech-tree price. As such, you don't gain anything when it is a "global" sale.
  3. My battle cry is: Go for the eyes Bagel, GO FOR THE EYES! And then @Vogel eats all the torps and citadels and sinks!
  4. Because we needed a catalyst to promote more questionable opinions, of which some have arrived already. In any case, win rate is most important, followed by damage and kills per game (these two can tell something about target selection). An exception to this is people who are being boosted by divisions, but generally speaking a good player is a good player no matter if he/she is in a division or not. Recent stats are a good way of seeing if the solo performance is near the division performance. Aggressive players that don't YOLO (aka playing cleverly) should have good stats in any case, so your point is moot.
  5. Stats are luck anyway.
  6. I think that was bait .
  7. I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. It's not about battleship being superior to other classes per se, but that the class is a high-impact, low-difficulty (relatively speaking) performer. As such, it is easy to lose a game in a battleship if you do not contribute in a battle. Take tier 6 for example. If maplesyrup is correct in the win rate department, the Fuso, New Mexico and Bayern have terrible global win rates during the last week (46,7 to 48,3 %) while the premium battleship with a lot less players perform well. Is the tier 6 premium battleships P2W then? No, it is just the fact that a lot of terrible players are dragging the win rate down (otherwise we would have an even 49-50 WR on all). As such, it is as you wrote: the win rate is only relevant if there is a large(r) deviation. In any case, after checking the statistics of cruisers as well, the trend is the same (terrible win rates, but insignificantly less crap) so I guess the point about worse win rates is rather moot.
  8. I guess that's WG's way of telling you that tier 9 Co-op is a bad idea.
  9. Rudder shift mods and the concealment mod/skill, obviously! As for damage, BBs are naturally at the top since they are the only reliable counter to other BBs (well, carriers as well, but...), as well as a specialised cruiser-counter and a DD-lolcounter. Now, for the funny tangent as to why battleships enjoy a lower win rate than cruisers (if I remember correctly from all the "BB confirmed not stronk"-posts): They have the most firepower They have the highest survivability So, what will generally happen when the players of this class do not go where they are needed but instead stray as far away from the objectives as possible? To summarise: fires are fine, if you get burned down you have either failed your team or overextended (not mutually exclusive).
  10. I cannot be bothered to do more research since the line isn't out yet, but the wikipedia article also includes this segment: In any case, balance > historical accuracy.
  11. I don't want any of the ships. Feel free to fetch the tar and feathers .
  12. In the case of the new Pan-Asian destroyers, giving them both torpedo types or making it a choice pre-battle shouldn't make any major differences. Why? Their guns should be good enough to deal with enemy destroyers and since the deep-water torps target cruisers and battleships alike, there is very little point in using the regular torpedoes (exception includes smoke-counter and late-game anti-DD/area-denial tactics). Now, if the torpedoes only affected battleships and carriers, you would have a decent trade-off, but this might make it necessary to have both torpedo types available in-game. As I wrote in the "discussion-thread", I can see the IJN destroyers having access to both types while the Pan-Asian ones will have to choose which ones they want to use before a game. That way, the IJN DDs will be the torpedo specialists (like they should), while the PA DDs will have to be balanced around both setups (one will be extremely deadly against BBs but results in an overall weakness vs. cruisers while the other will be decent against most targets). The torpedo reload and relative weak gun performance (vulnerable to other DDs) of the IJN DDs should be enough of a trade-off to let them have access to both torpedo types.
  13. It costs doubloons . The downsides might be manoeuvrability, gun performance or hit points, but worse consumables might also be an option. Hard to tell at this stage.
  14. As I've written earlier, I'd rather see the Lion/Conqueror having a shorter cooldown on the "warspite-heal" than having the British CL-heal since that should be much easier to balance, not to mention that it brings more consistency to the line. Another issue with the heal is that the ships in question take a lot of regular penetrations which can be healed much better than citadel damage so this difference between the cruiser and battleship consumable might not be that big of a deal (depending on how prone the BBs are to citadel damage of course).
  15. Considering that most cruisers are sailing closer to the destroyers (both hostile and friendly), I'm worried that a possible consequence is that these new torpedoes will be better at hitting cruisers than battleships. The idea seems good though, so I guess testing will highlight possible issues. I could see this becoming a feature of the IJN DDs though: instead of the wide spread (who uses this anyway?), the destroyers can launch "deep-water" torpedoes that detonates only when hitting battleships (and are harder to detect). That way, the players have two options ingame: A general-purpose torpedo which is fast but is somewhat lacking in the detectability department. A specialised anti-BB weapon that is difficult to detect and is much more likely to reach the intended target. The trade-off is that it is useless against everything else. In my opinion, this might make IJN DDs great again(TM) and could potentially bring them to the front as anti-BB destroyers.