Kartoffelmos

By that logic, should we buff the tier 4 battleships to match the Imperator as well? Using the "best performing ship" as the basis for balance decisions is a terrible idea. Especially since win rate wise, they are about the same with Kawachi at 50,76 % and Nassau/South Carolina at ~49,9 %. Granted, there are twice as many Nassaus around than Kawachis (by player numbers), but I think 2k Kawachi players are enough to assume that the skill distribution is similar for the two ships. Buffing the guns on the Kawachi would therefore not be very wise. And before anyone says "but the Nassau deals more damage!", I would like to point out that the sheer number of Nassaus at the moment pretty much guarantees the ship to dish out more damage than its counterparts.

You can find it in the latest news article as well. Seems like a nice feature, but to me the ship feels more empty (strangely enough) when there are only 8 men running around compared to when it's completely devoid of people. It's probably because the small number of sailors highlight the emptiness as opposed to giving the illusion of activity.

Would be nice to have some official word on this matter, especially if the in-game currency in question is credits (and/or free XP) and not gold/doubloons. Somehow, I doubt that that is the case but at least we would get some information directly from the WoWs developers/staff and not through a WoT representative.

Does it? The projectile detonator of Iowa's shells is listed at 0,033 seconds. Say that you were close enough so that the shells held their initial velocity at 762 m/s (this is a simplification as I have no idea what the shell velocity is at 11 km range). With these numbers, the shell will travel 25,146 meters before detonating. In comparison, the beam of the Atlanta is only 16,1 meters. As such, the shells would have needed to have a velocity loss of ~36 % before detonating within the ship and I do not think that that happens at 11 km range. Now, if you had struck the surface of the water next to the ship or even shot when the ship was angled, the shells would probably travelled enough to detonate on the correct side of the hull, but as you described? Not likely. As for your overpenetrations, every shell that overpenetrates dish out 10% of the maximum damage (1350 in this case) so five overpenetrations equal 6750 damage. Does this truly seem like an unreasonable explanation?

I'll admit that I didn't read that post, but it changes nothing. The point still stands: a cruiser dishing out 200k on average (yes, since a semi-decent player should be able to do it, I find it fair to list it as average) is still a ludicrous claim that makes your entire post seem like a pointless rant. As for RNG, it is the only thing that balances battleships. Take that away and you will get World of Battleships instantly. Reduce RNG and decrease damage (increasing the reload is not an option as stated by the developers) and you make cruisers obsolete. However, the issue seems to be more about you overpenetrating the citadel of the Atlanta than anything else, so I fail to see how better RNG/accuracy would be of any use. If you are wondering if it was always like this (overpenetrating citadels), it should have been; there was a bug present that made every shot that hit the citadel area deal citadel damage, no matter if it should have bounced off the citadel armour. When this was fixed, suddenly the overpenetrations became more noticeable.

Maybe he never looked on your stats. Maybe he just read "A semi decent CA can walk away with about 200k purely from HE spam" in addition to "I was playing the Pepsi in the closed beta, when I came to live I ended up playing cruisers way too aggressively and kept getting stomped" and made the logical conclusion: that you do not know what you are talking about.

Now we'll just have to wait for the iChase-video where he explains that the "separate premium economy" was planned, implemented and openly communicated since closed alpha .

You can only heal a specified amount of damage, like 10 % of citadel/heavy damage, all fire damage and so on. In theory, you do not have any "segments" or limitations. However, the repair party only works during a limited amount of time with a constant repair rate of 0,5 % of maximum HP/second (0,65 % for the Colorado for some reason) which means that you will reach a consumable-imposed limit when the duration is over. The grey area represents this limit. If you have not taken any damage (or a lot of heavy damage), the grey area will be nonexistent or quite small. If you have taken a lot of minor damage, you will be able to heal up to (0,5 % HP/s * 28 s = ) 14 % of your total hit points. Note that if you have more "unhealed" damage after the usage of the repair party, you will be able to heal it with the next charge of the consumable. You can read more about it here.

If fires and HE-spam are so game-breaking, why do they only represent ~33 % of the damage received in battleships? Moreover, all fire damage, as well as (according to the ability) light damage (which mostly comes from HE shells) can be completely recovered so the effective fire and HE percentage should be a lot lower. As such, why do you not complain about AP-induced damage instead, as that represents roughly 43 % of all damage? Is it because the majority of this type of damage comes from other battleships, thus meaning that you would have to complain that class instead?

Yamato, Montana, Amagi and Iowa confirmed underpowered? Seems reasonable...

Are you certain that he didn't collide with a sinking ship? He would then be able to halt immediately and resume his acceleration once the ship went completely under the water.

"And, by the way, If I'm wrong, I will be the very first person to admit that I messed something up horribly." - iChase Having said that, my guess is that perhaps the arcs were flatter at some point in time (visual representation, not the actual performance) and got changed at a later date to be more accurate, thus giving the illusion of longer travel times. However, that is just speculation.

Seing as most of them didn't exist, I would guess they will have insanely good concealment ratings . I don't think Nikolai is representative for the entire line in any case, seeing as most tier 4 BBs are extremely different from the rest from their nations (usually due to time/era/philosophy differences/developments). As for me being the boss (), it might have something to do with the fact that the exact same thing happened regarding the Scharnhorst-argument; you took an assumption/opinion and presented it as a fact.

Seeing as he has somehow shifted the burden of proof onto us (great argumentative tactic by the way), here is a quote from a while ago: Combine that with the rules in the official wiki and you will easily see that there is no cap on destroyers (unless someone is lying, but I find that unlikely in this case): [edited]

You don't know? I thought you explicitly stated that there was a limit and that said limit had been confirmed by developers... As for the rest of your post, 100 battles should be enough, but you cannot conclude that it is a limit even then. Why? Because the matchmaker uses all ships available and thus if you have many players of class X online (within the allowed tier range, of course) you will see a lot of class X in the next battle. There's no hard cap on destroyers, only a limited number of players online that queue up in destroyers.

Now you are just being silly. They stated that they planned to do something and lo and behold, they implemented said feature at a later stage. To go back to the original issue, they stated that they wanted the destroyers to ideally be within certain numbers, but contrary to the calibre statement, that has yet to happen. I think you should work on your perception of past, present and future and stop mixing them together. Less confirmation bias and anecdotal evidence, please. EDIT: This is also quite hilarious by the way: So where's the confirmation?

Nah, it's obviously mistranslated or conveying the notion that they already have implemented the feature. After all, the word "think" and all of its synonyms means that something has been performed and not that you are voicing an opinion about something.

So... Russian translations confirmed to always convey a different meaning than the actual translations? Good to know. On another note:

It's nice to see that you are doing well though, so the bump wasn't entirely pointless .

How about no? Both of your suggestions punish team play and reward mostly destroyers. Combined with your other suggestion that destroyers should be able to spot from within their smoke clouds, the result is quite bad to put it mildly.

(Seriously, use the search function next time.)

Not sure where I implied that capping XP shouldn't be adjusted, but I still feel that it's "manageable" at the moment. The "too much XP" issue usually arise when one destroyer is allowed to cap multiple points by the other destroyers, meaning that the enemy team plays poorly. The same can be said about battleships getting too much XP if the enemy cruisers play poorly but I'll admit that that is a bit unfair analogy considering it's more situational. Tuning down the reward is a solution, but then damage dealt should be rewarded more (which arguably benefits certain destroyers more than others). As for ranked games, the XP reward is not the major cause of the DD domination, but rather a combination of objectives being more important and cruisers being more vulnerable to battleships (smaller engagement ranges). The latter (except for engagement ranges) is also why you find so many destroyers (as well as battleships) in high-tier games, especially since there are so few carriers around nowadays.

I think (some) of you guys are worrying too much. At the moment, only statistics are being gathered and there does not appear to be any planned economy changes for 0.5.10: Now, whether or not Lesta will add rewards in a sensible manner is a different issue entirely, but they should at least have the statistical data available to implement a new, balanced economy. The end result should be quite similar to what we have now (unless they goof it up) in terms of rewards per game, but now people will be rewarded for supporting others and playing more offensively, not just by capping and dealing out damage. Maybe certain ships (IJN destroyers) will get an overall increase in XP earned if so needed, as they will also be rewarded for spotting when they perform their torpedo attacks. As for the current economy, I don't find it to be particularly unfair. Sure, a destroyer will get a boatload of XP for capping multiple points but at the same time, that exact destroyer is playing to win by going after the objectives (and possibly missing out on dealing out damage). Shouldn't that be rewarded? I'd rather have that destroyer on my team and end up with a lower place on the scoreboard than to have the enemy cap all the points.

Don't listen to this rant. With the correct upgrades and captain skills, Ibuki is a really good ship. The only ship I'm sceptical about in the IJN CA line is the Mogami, as I transferred the captain from her before the nerfs and haven't played with her after. The rest of the ships are all decent or quite good.