Kartoffelmos

The issue with your argument is that if you are average at a game, you cannot know what is good or bad, since you then no longer would be average at said game. You have to be at a certain skill level to actually have the self-awareness to know that you are at that exact skill level and thus realise which ships you perform poorly in because of the ships and which ships you perform poorly in because of your playstyle (or other personal traits). A bad player will not realise any of those things and will often overrate his/her own performance, while a good player will often underrate how hard it is to perform at his own level. That is called the Donning-Kruger effect. As for your example, it is completely off the mark. Developers design games with a specific purpose in mind and often neglect to see how certain mechanics can be used/abused in an unexpected manner (tunnel-vision). That's why we get unbalanced ships to begin with, because people either plays above the skill level of the developers or use the ship/ship's abilities in an unexpected manner. For instance, smoke was intended as a way to escape danger, but it quickly turned into an additional way to dish out damage. Torpedo bombers were supposed to deal minor damage, but good players use them to scout early in the match by dropping the payload. Of course, the developers can also make the game too hard, but that means that the developers either play more than the players or are just the best players ever. Both of these assumptions are unrealistic because of player numbers (statistically unrealistic that a random group of developers just happens to be the best players ever) and commitment to a different aspect of the game (players tend to play the game more than the developers due to obvious reasons). And thus we end up at the starting point: how are you going to argue against someone who thinks he is better than he actually is without showing him how he performs? I could argue against him, but the difference in perception makes this difficult since we're not on the same page regarding mechanics/balance issues and then I cannot help him improve. It would be the same as if you should argue against me when I say "the community is not toxic" and demand that you do not use any sort of quotes or screenshots from the forums/game as those can be considered statistics in this scenario. After all, that is my perception of the community and whatever you write in return will be your perception of it. Not a single fact, only subjective opinions which no one will benefit from. And being toxic in a topic about community toxicity is? He stated his perception and now you accuse him of being unsportsmanlike. Why do you not argue against the notion instead?

Atago: Ibuki: Time to nerf all the Myokos, I suppose...

Bagel only takes shats from everyone? >:3

Oh you! It's obviously: EDIT: BAGEL FORKIN PLS! Also, fork typing on the phone! >:Ø EDIT2: Should have refreshed, me sad now :<.

I'll just leave this here and add that I don't use stats to invalidate an argument but to highlight how a player's perception of the game differs from reality (maybe I'm just old-fashioned but I dislike spreading of false information): Two examples: BBs are UP -> highlights that the player in question is performing quite well in battleships and that there's nothing to complain about. I could also add official statistics, depending on how the the thread is worded. Team sucks all the time -> highlight the usual business that the player is the only common factor and that win rate is not all about luck. In any case, this particular topic also goes the other way around: bad players tend to have the habit of blaming anything but themselves (I could point to the scientific explanation if you'd like) which also may result in toxic behaviour.

My case was that "stat-bashing" is necessary in some cases and in others a way to merely avoid a pointlessly long discussion. Do people ignore players with bad stats? Possibly, but I can't say that I have noticed such a trend. Do people bash players with bad stats that try to give advice or who act like they have a deep understanding of how one should play/how the game works? Yes, but what's the alternative? Arguing back and forth until one player admits that he/she is wrong? Not going to happen. Don't get me wrong, with most suggestions and discussions, the skill levels of the posters involved are irrelevant, but one better have a decent grasp of the game (or statistical evidence) when creating topics regarding game/ship balance.

Well, you can thank WG/Lesta for that when they nerfed the entire line because of Kiev/Udaloi/Khabarovsk. Fortunately, the increase in turret durability (and fire chance for certain ships) have remedied the effects, so I might start to grind Ognevoi when I have the time :3. Hopefully more people will do the same so we get more statistical data.

Well, apart from the ranting nature of the OP, he/she has a point: the Khaba has a pretty high win ratio compared to the other DDs: Date Khaba Gearing Shima 23.07 56,32 50,87 45,17 16.07 52,89 51,36 47,55 09.07 54,59 51,18 46,73 Now, the Khaba is "only" played by ~110-130 players while Gearing and Shima is used by ~230 and ~400 players respectively, so there might only be an issue of saturation of good players (or rather, lack of statistically bad players).

In some cases, yes. When the poster in question has the belief that he/she is the best player in history of online games and thus is infallible in both argumentation and gameplay, it is extremely hard to convince said person that the reality differs from his/her perception of it. For instance, I could create a thread that using torpedoes is way too easy and never budge with that statement no matter how rational the counter-arguments are. I fact, I could just cherry-pick the responses I deem fit and straw-man my way out of them or even deny that the argument holds any truth at all. Then, someone could pull up my stats and show that I have no clue what I'm talking about, since I don't play a lot of pure-torp destroyers and even when I use torpedoes in my cruisers, it's often on occasions where I simply cannot miss (ambushes, close-quarter combat, etc.). Now, what could I possibly answer to that observation? "Nu-uh, you're wrong, torps are easy! I know because, I always get 40k torpedo damage!"? My personal stats would prove this to be a lie and no matter how I would respond (I get bad teams that don't let me torp, etc.), I would still be lying, intentionally or not. However, the real problem arises when even this fails and when I reject everything, even my own performance. People will then start to ridicule me and with good reason. As such, moderators should stop the discussion since it does not go anywhere and will (most likely) become rather heated. (Heh, now I painted myself to be some kind of argumentative monster with delusions of grandeur. Good job, me!) On the other hand, if a person claim that one specific ship is UP/OP, you do not have to resort to stat-bashing, but rather show the global stats for said ship. However, if the person does not accept those stats to be valid for some reason, you might try to argue why the ship is fine. This brings up another issue; why should said person trust some random poster on the internet, or even worse, why would that poster have a different experience with said ship? After all, personal experiences tend to be more valid than those of other users, at least in the eyes of those who already have made their conclusion and are asking for a change. Yes, you could always ignore the issue entirely and not try to sway the one who obviously struggle to do well with a ship (or against a certain ship), but then you would not be helping him/her with the issue at all, which cannot be said to be good for the community either. TL;DR: Sometimes, the truth hurts but one must try to accept it in order to improve oneself.

Of course, but it depends on how Lesta view the new tier 4 MM spread (these ships can now get into +2 tier range matches with a +1 tier division mate when they previously only used to get into +1 tier range matches with the same setup). As for carriers, I'm still not sure how "divisioning" works with those (will the carrier MM trump the top tier ship MM?), but one cannot deny that bringing a lower tier carrier into a higher tier match results in a considerable disadvantage for one of the teams: either your own due to obvious reasons, or the enemy team if they have a same-tier CV division (more low-tier ships if unlucky). On the other hand, maybe the new matchmaker is robust enough to handle platoons in an adequate manner, but Im not willing to test that out just yet .

I assume this will mean that future divisions are only allowed to have a maximum of one tier difference with regular ships and no tier differences with carriers (aka the carrier and the highest tiered ship must be of the same tier)? Either that or the ships must all be of the same tier (makes somewhat sense given the latest reduction in tier ranges for certain tiers/ships).

Well, the historical gun stats are awfully similar to the in-game stats of Karlsruhe's guns... On the other hand, quite a lot of projects/ships used the 127mm guns which seem to have ballistic properties similar to that of Bwaskuwatsu (which can't be a bad thing, right?).

Tirpitz confirmed to have no fire immunity period? Time for more buffs! While we're at it, buff BB AA and nerf fires and torpedoes as well!

How long do you think it will take before someone starts complaining about X not being on offer/sale? Two days? Nice special, but sadly I have all of my ships outfitted with modules. Might spend some doubloons on port slots tough.

I got my first one when the match ended due to the timer (and we were leading in points), so you should (unless it has changed) get the medal in that situation as well. Since the achievement is very rare, it's hard to reproduce the scenarios (well, within the rules of the game) and thus bug-testing is extremely hard to perform. Might be worthwhile to send replays (and scoreboard screenshots) to support/WG employees in order to confirm whether or not there is a bug involved.

Wait, why do you oppose the suggestion that WG/Lesta should develop artificial intelligence? Think about the possibilities! The A.I. could even develop the game further before it started the obligatory attempt at conquering the world! As for the rest (using my phone so apologies for image size/quality):

From what I can tell, it is only (at the moment, anyway) a fat Hipster with less range and worse handling: 1200 more hit points 170 m less range 30 m larger turning radius 0,22 longer rudder shift time (negligible) 390 m larger air detectability circle 9 less AA DPS at 2 km (who cares?) Apart from being famous, there appears to be no distinct feature or gameplay, as most differences are rather small. I wonder if it will be released that way or if something will be added/changed when the ship is being tested.

My guess is due to rather subjective reasons. Same with the rewards to ships that defend carriers (specifically strike Ranger) from self-imposed harm.

So, you played badly and think the reward system is unfair because it favoured people that didn't play badly? Also, you think that "dead players" should not be able to use chat since they can give advise to the remaining players and thus "give away" the first place on the losing side? In short, not only did you play badly, you also played selfishly (not a surprise to anyone who has read your other ranked game threads) and lost the majority of your games because of it. Seems to me that you should have learnt more, but then there would be even more unfortunate teams with you as a "contributing" member.

Hrmmmm. Will these ships play more like Cleveland or Mogami? Anything in between would be nice as well, but I would personally prefer the shell arcs to be as low as possible.

That's funny, because when I look at my/your latest replies, I clearly see why there is nothing more to say. Edit: But that's enough off-topic posts, no?

Really? I spoke for myself. It's also nice of you to invite me (and my friend?) to TS, but it seems to me that there is nothing more to discuss.

​ Already have, several times. Took some damage from some cruisers that decided to take advantage of the slow turret turn rate, but nothing serious. It's not that hard to minimise threats if you pay attention to where the enemy battleships are on the minimap. In any case, I've yet to see any non-"straw man" replies from you, so my point about you having another agenda still stands.

​ Seems like someone cannot differentiate between different alternatives (alternatively between "and" and "or"). Also, showing broadside to a hidden destroyer (torps excluded) is harmless if the enemy battleship(s) has just fired the guns. Seems to me that this argument was started with something else than factual discussion in mind...

There seems to be something wrong with the forum today. For some reason, all of the OP's replies are gone...