Kartoffelmos

Why? Why would you be happy to receive a countermeasure to "hilarious" situations? You do realise that the Juliet Charlie flags are in themselves an admittance of poor game design? Errr... I think you need to reread that section of my post. I did not promote realism, I used random realistic scenarios (just like detonations) to highlight the silliness of a random feature that for all intents and purposes, adds nothing to the game. In fact, you might say that I argued against realism in favour of better gameplay.

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.

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.

My battle cry is: Go for the eyes Bagel, GO FOR THE EYES! And then @Vogel eats all the torps and citadels and sinks!

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.

Stats are luck anyway.

I think that was bait .

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.

I guess that's WG's way of telling you that tier 9 Co-op is a bad idea.

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).

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.

I don't want any of the ships. Feel free to fetch the tar and feathers .

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.

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.

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).

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.

Obviously it's the ships that are at fault and not the players... Bayern confirmed weak!

Someone should report @Tyrendian89, @mdragic04 and @gr0pah (who I also met yesterday in a Bismarck game) for breaching the Geneva convention since they didn't accept my surrender and shamelessly plundered my supply of upvotes! On a more serious note, I knew the game would be hard when I spotted those three in a division and my team did not disappoint in making it worse. Not only did they give up all map control whilst lemming-train'ingconvoying to one side of the map, they also failed to sink anything before getting sunk themselves. If they had sailed to the centre of the map in order to defend/repel the enemy push, the result might have been slightly different. I mean, what even is this ?! Having said that, I managed to farm enough cruiser damage (but sadly missed the citadels when I switched to AP) to complete the last stage of the ongoing mission. Thanks guys! As per usual, I also blame Bagel:

Such an encounter usually unfolds in two ways: The gunboat disengages and mostly cruisers will be able to fire off a salvo before she disappears (as noted above, the concealment difference is not large enough to enable "tailing") The gunboat presses on and eventually spots the torpedo boat, at which point both will be targeted by their respective allies. Yes, the gunboat may take less BB AP damage than before, but so will the torpedo boat once she is spotted. You may argue that the reduction in regular BB AP penetrations may give a small advantage to the gunboat IF the ship is allowed to harass the torpedo boat for a longer period of time, but again, this goes both ways: the torpedo boat is as likely to be hit by BB AP penetrations as the gunboat (with some exceptions like larger destroyers as the German ones). As for the screenshot... I seriously doubt you can do that regularly since RPF does not give you any information about the exact distance to the target. If the enemy also has RPF, you will be even less likely to succeed (RPF is a silly skill in any case, but that is a discussion for another thread). Even if you do succeed every time, the changes to BB AP will most likely prolong the destroyers life slightly: cruisers will still be able to wreck the ship and it's not like those have a very low rate of fire.

If destroyers are so strong, why don't more people play them? Because gunboats will be less "balanced" by BB AP shells but torpedoboats spotted by gunboats/radar/hydro will not for some reason. I don't understand it either.

Shimakaze confirmed as the famousteresterest of all famous ships of WWII! Until she got nerfed... then, all fame magically disappeared. It is a contributing factor, but it is not the cause of the overall popularity.

I couldn't be bothered to do any research due to since I'm somewhat tired of the "steel of type X was better than regular steel used by nation Y and corresponds to a thickness of Z"-argument. It is not that simple (unless all ships are built the same way which they aren't). I must say that it might be a tad difficult to make a ship out of pommels though .

Pffff, please. Cemented armour < Krupp steel <<< Folded Nippon steel. Also: Anyhow, I don't particularly care about Nelson and the "paywall" complaints (Tirpitz and Scharnhorst come to mind), but I find it silly that the Vanguard wasn't tested, since she fits with the rest of the line. As it is now, the tier 9/10 are different from the rest of the line and the Vanguard would serve as a good transition.

It is, but I was only suggesting arbitrary values. Obviously it needs to be tested, but I hope it will never come to that (I though the giant HAS made that clear ). Indeed. As I wrote, that specific suggestion at least brings positive effects along with drawbacks (less valuable hydro* + more risky smokes) which is why I like it. I don't really think smoke needs to be changed, but chain-smoking an area (if no hydro/radar ships are around) can be quite tedious to deal with with the current system. Well, at least against skilled opponents that know how to position themselves/move within smoke. Then again, those users are locking themselves into one position of the map and as long as your team does not consist of potatoes (), they should know that they can focus on other areas/vulnerable opponents instead. Seems balanced, to me. *Hydro can be reworked to let the user spot targets at a greater range (the aforementioned 4 km becomes 6 km for hydro users), but this may break the suggested smoke entirely .

The asymmetrical maps had issues (the very same you describe), yes, but they are more interesting than symmetrical maps if well designed. As for killzone, I've found ring to be one of the better maps though teams have no incentive to move from one cap to anywhere else, which brings passive play. This might be tied to the closer distances involved on the new maps which means that a battleship can punish other ships whenever they are spotted in important positions (aka near the caps). As for Fault line, I have a love/hate relationship with the map: it's fun when you are playing a battleship/destroyer and your team push into the centre, but as a cruiser it quickly became tedious (either camp at the edges or risk getting deleted). I guess I just want larger maps that require the teams to move into positions instead of maps where the "best" positions are literally right next to the caps and within effective engagement range of the ships involved. If smoke HAS to be nerfed, I would like a solution that actually improves the game (the current "suggestion" does not). Reducing accuracy in smoke may work, but I fear that it will only add annoyance to the users (who wants more RNG anyway?). As such, I really like stranger's/Bagel's idea: smoke removes the concealment penalty of firing the guns but you retain your surface concealment value whenever you fire (alternatively, a specific reduction is placed on the total visibility depending on the calibre involved). The results of such a feature is that cruisers and destroyers can in most cases play as normal*, but battleships and long-range spammers (which tends to have worse concealment) will be more vulnerable. *The only real difference is that people can charge the smoke more reliably. If the "modifier version" is used, destroyers would probably see little change (getting spotted from 3-4 km away instead of 2 km for instance), while cruisers and battleships will be moderately/much more more exposed (6 km/12 km?). This makes the risk/reward for counterplay somewhat more predictable. In any case, I find this entire discussion to be extremely silly since there literally is no need to "fix" this before a certain other class is made more vulnerable in some way or another. It's not like one class is currently dominating most tiers and promotes smoke-camping due to: It has enough staying power to survive minutes of taking hits. Combine this with the fact that cruisers and gun-destroyers rely on DPM and one should clearly understand why smoke is so attractive these days. It has enough firepower to punish other classes quite heavily despite of little risk to themselves (see point 1), which makes smoke and terrain usage extremely appealing in order to avoid getting deleted. It is the only class that can enforce and obtain map control (not bypass like destroyers can do). A way to stop the class when it pushes is to deploy a smoke screen and make the total damage sustained not worth it. I'm of course obviously referring to carriers and their usage of planes to strong-arm and diversion-tank (time spent avoiding is time spent not shooting) other classes. Fix this and the problem might resolve itself. If not, adjust smoke to better fit the new meta.