Kartoffelmos

More information on the PA DDs from the development blog: Pictures of these destroyers were also posted : (Source) As always, please discuss here.

To be fair, that only applies if there is a carrier in play. In addition, carriers have no way (well, except visuals) to determine the effective strength of a ship's AA so targeting a ship that you think has been blasted (enough) by the Conqueror can be quite risky. If the CV player is paying attention or is in a division with a Conqueror, things change dramatically though. For cruisers and destroyers, losing main guns and/or torpedo tubes can be annoying though, I'll give you that.

Although the analysis is good (can't believe I missed the explanation regarding the win rates ), I fear that the conclusion is flawed. Yes, the above-average players focus on battleships instead of going for ships that matter (the Zao-effect). However, Conqueror should dish out more damage to destroyers at least due to the HE damage being more reliable than AP penetrations, but it seems that "many" Conqueror players (like many bad BB players) "refuse" to shoot at them. Not focusing cruisers is also an issue, since a lot of these have radar which will be a problem if you lose the fight for caps or leave them alone for too long. On the other hand, Conqueror punish good cruiser players more than bad players, since you are pretty much forced to disengage after you receive the first fire whereas you can harass other battleships for a longer time as long as you don't play like a potato. Now, bad players will probably play the same as the above-average players in that they will most likely spam enemy battleships instead of cruisers/destroyers and thus might yield similar result, while good players with correct targeting prioritising and positioning will be a threat to most ships (and win games more often). This is all speculation of course, but Conqueror might be one of those ships where both good and bad players overperform (easy to play vs. utilising all the strengths) yet average to above-average players stick to one tactic that works without thinking of the implications this has for the battle. One might say that they try to mimic good players without understanding the reason behind the choices of good players. For instance, a good player might burn down a battleship in order to give his cruisers and destroyers more breathing space whereas an average player might do the same just because it is rewarding: the former leads to an advantage for the team while the latter might result in a disadvantage if the target is one of the camping battleships (which have little impact on the game). It will be interesting to see how the stats will develop, but I do not think these changes will have that big of an impact.

Indeed. That's why I would like an explanation of the data, since all we can do now is to speculate on how it was collected. Even if a WG only used players that have multiple tier 10 battleships, that data in itself won't paint a true picture since they all (with exception to Montana/Conqueror) plays differently. The difference in performance might not necessarily be caused by the ships themselves. If they collected data from enough players, then it would be quite representative, but I doubt that the Conqueror is owned by that many players (who also own another tier 10 BB) just yet.

"The Hellcat is not OP, it just happens to fit my playstyle better" - every Hellcat statpadder prior to the nerf. I wonder what this implies since you compare pre-nerf Hellcat to Yamato...

But why would you use that data? That doesn't really tell anything of the ship, especially since the Conqueror would probably have significantly lower battles played compared to the other battleships (higher risk of inaccurate data for the Conqueror). Since the Conqueror already have a lower battle count, this only worsen the situation. On the other hand, this coincides with Ovtavian's statement (Conqueror is played by more statistical good players than the other ships) so you might very well be correct. However, I still find it weird that Conqueror which should be easier to play and more potent against other battleships (a huge bonus in the BB-heavy meta), performs worse in the hands of good players than the regular battleships. One might argue that they are still learning how to play the ship, but still... Your assumption requires one team to have no tier 10 battleships whilst the other have multiple ones. That doesn't happen due to the mirrored matchmaking. Even if one team has only one extra tier 10 battleships, this should not have such an impact on the win rate (doesn't happen often enough). If it does have such an impact, we can safely assume that tier 10 battleships are far too powerful compared to other ships (usually, a tier difference is compensated by the other classes) and that a global nerf should be handed out.

Regarding the stats, if the earlier response from @Sub_Octavian is taken into consideration, the win rate might refer to the average win rate of the player. Then again, he argued that the average Conqueror player had a higher win rate than the rest of the tier 10 battleship players, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to believe. In any case, the ships cannot have an average win rate of above 50 % since: Mirrored matchmaking makes this impossible. If one battleship has above 50 % win rate, some other battleship will need to have a lower ratio. Granted, if one ship is played a lot less frequently than others, there might be a larger difference, but every ship should not be able to have a win ratio above 50 %. The ships should have been adjusted a long time ago since they all are clearly overperforming. A more detailed explanation would be nice.

I started to write a longer response, but then I figured it was not worth my time. As such, learn to read or even better, learn how to read entire sections of a text in order to not make a fool of yourself. As for your "advice", I am good enough of a player to realise how the mod can be abused and what advantages it gives, so why should I test it out? I can already use the tracers to shoot ships in smoke, but what I cannot do is shoot at targets outside my render range in cyclone. If I used the mod to that effect, I would also be a hypocrite since I'm currently voicing my disapproval. In any case, bad players will get more out of the mod since they can just adjust the range and pray to RNGesus that the target hasn't moved in smoke or is close enough to the last location spotted. On a side note, I find it humorous that you claim that you are impartial yet you become aggressive whenever someone point out a tactic which you have been unable to use in your hundred games of using the mod.

Interesting, but it enables some nasty tactics. Since the PA DDs still have extremely good concealment, they can just rush caps, disengage as soon as they spot a DD or is spotted themselves and activate the radar. If the enemy DD falls back, it will be spotted (while the PA DD won't) and if it tries to close the distance, the PA DD holds the advantage since she is kiting. Not to mention that the other DD will sail towards the opposing team. As far as I can see, the top tier has equal gun performance as the Gearing and since the DW will hit both cruisers and battleships, I fear that WG have made her too good at everything. I mean, her torps are faster than those of Gearing while having much lower concealment at the cost of range (13,5 km vs. 16,5 km). This does not seem balanced at first glance. If you boost the torpedo reload as much as you can, you get a hybrid ship that can hold her own in close-quarters combat, as well as being a potent torpedo boat. That might also be a problem, yes. Hopefully, things will be sorted out during testing, just like the RN BB HE .

I thought you knew? Obviously you mean that the mod offers next to nothing with regards to in-game advantages (I can read you know) and that you don't care either way with regards to the mod's potential removal, but your response regarding pseudo-lawyers and ignorance makes me think otherwise. As for advantages, I can point out two things that makes the mod questionable at best: Very easy to shoot people who sit still in smoke, especially RN cruisers who are detected in the open and forced to smoke up (use the last known position, aim slightly behind or just adjust to the tracers). Shooting targets in cyclone that are outside render range (but spotted by allies) is suddenly quite doable since the range estimation made this difficult prior to the mod. Yes, it is situational, but that does not mean that it does not offer information that should not be available to you. Especially the cyclone-shooting has the potential to become game-deciding.

Maybe you should add replays so we all can give you advice on how to deal with bad teams?

Heh, I've often found that it is the camping battleship captains (that let their team die around them) who complains about bad teams (the rest complain about said captains and/or specific players). After checking the OP's game history during the weekend (EDIT: well, Sunday and afterwards - 18,2 % WR), I cannot say that I was surprised by what I found .

Hey, I have a course in contract law (two if you want to be technical) as part of my master's degree! I don't need to take this crap from you! One a more serious note (although the above is true), this sound more like a knee-jerk response towards those that do not share your point of view than anything else.

Well, people said the same thing about the lead indicator, but that still does not mean that it is good for the game . Marvin is right though: the game rules are missing the paragraph(s) that used to mention modifications which resulted in an unfair advantage. I believe it was removed by WG during the whole "it is okay as long as you don't find it morally wrong" debacle. On the other hand, this is still there: As such, what we are doing now is not allowed, but using said modifications is totally fine .

Well, people posted statistics regarding her performance earlier and you failed to read that properly so I'm not really sure what you expect at this point. The ship has the same win rate as the other tier 10 battleships while dealing more damage. Yes, the ship has a lower K/D ratio, but that can be explained by the lower survival rate. In short, the Yamato is more vulnerable to return fire due to the citadel shape but also dishes out more damage. The ship doesn't need any buffs and any comparisons with the Conqueror makes the resulting arguments void by default.

They are all good except Conqueror which is OP? There is no "worst" tier 10 battleship in the game, but we do have a Montana which is being outclassed by Conqueror in pretty much everything. If you think otherwise, feel free to argue why Yamato is bad instead of "it is bad because I said so" or "it is bad because X has Y number of guns".

I meant beside special events. I don't see any point in keeping her outside the regular premium shop/in-game tech tree except creating artificial demand and even then, the ship isn't that special to attract other customers than collectors.

Ah, right. Forgot about those (Kamikaze, Fūjin, Kamikaze R), even though the IJN rebalance happened quite some while ago . Wait, are you referring to the stock (or elite pre-buff) Furutaka? If so, she still exists, but there is no point in using hull A/B over the upgraded hull C ("mini-Aoba").

Well, aren't Nikolai I and Gremyashchy (and perhaps König Albert if rumours are to believed) the only OP ships that are banned from the store? Other than that, we have the alpha/beta reward ships (Iwaki Alpha and Arkansas Beta), Kitikami, which won't be sold/rewarded due to gameplay considerations (for now at least), Katori and the pre-order ships (Yūbari, Sims and the aforementioned Gremy). So from all of those, only the pre-order ships (with one obvious exception) should be added to the regular store in my opinion. Hell, even the Gremy could be added, depending how stronk that ship is after the removal of stealth fire. I'm not sure why the Katori isn't available already though.

This one? Never heard about these two. Are you sure you're not confusing the the six-turreted one with Tone? EDIT: You can also find all the ships that you can meet in the WG wiki. Is the low-tier cruiser perhaps Yūbari?

If I'm not mistaken, Expert Marksman only improves your turret rotation by 3 seconds (26,9 s vs. 30 s.), so I would choose Adrenaline Rush instead. As for the original issue, the recent meta heavily favours Fire Prevention so you might want to get that. If you worry about planes, swap Basics of Survivability for Basic Firing Training (also boosts your secondaries which is nice). With Fire Prevention, you already got a huge improvement in your resistance towards fires, so the resulting build should be quite versatile. Another option is to get Superintended (instead of BoS or BFT) for extra survivability.

No, that seems about right. I'm not sure if we get both modes on the live server, but I guess we get the old one the week before Halloween while the new mode will be available after that.

It's the new Halloween mode. From the test server article:

Of course, but the uniform 32 mm deck armour means that you are vulnerable to HE spam (similar to Izumo). That is, if you are spotted for more than 20 seconds and even then, the fair and balanced heal negates this "weakness" entirely... But wait, Conqueror has bad torpedo protection, right?! Oh, it is still better than that of Kurrywurst and the manoeuvrability advantage makes Montana's torpedo protection advantage seem rather minor .

Obviously the low HP pool and 32 mm deck armour which is not offset by the zombie-heal, the low concealment or the submerged citadel .