Kartoffelmos

I didn't see any advice in my post, only a simple statement. I don't particularly care if you agree with it or not, but you should stop blaming the team and try to be better yourself. Now that, my friend, is an advice. As for my number of ranked battles, feel free to note that the total number that you listed was enough to get me to rank 1 in the second season and to the reward-flag ranks in the following seasons. But hey, I'm not the one whining on the forum without any real cause, so why point your finger at me?

When you figure out that after a certain number of battles, you are the only common factor in all of the games. I could also point to the fact that you use non-optimal (T5) ships and play them rather poorly based on damage per game, kills per game and XP per game, but I thought it would be obvious enough with only WR.

Bring back the hard counter to battleships (which does not fork over cruisers and destroyers as well)!#BBabiesDon'tNeedMoreBuffs

"Has a 38,64 % win rate in ranked; blames the teams." Seems legit. It's not like the issue might be a lack of self-awareness or anything.

._____________. Maybe some of us can't notice a difference over 60 FPS, but I think that we should at least be able to notice a difference when forum threads reach 1 PPY (Post Per Year).

Limit every class -> no one plays high-tier ships -> no more problem -> problem solved. Alternatively, try to comprehend what it is that causes the "problem" and fix that instead. I'll even give you a hint: it's not the destroyers.

Interesting. So with my Atago, both XP flags and my alpha flag (base XP +3*50% + 10%), you will only need 19,23k XP to retrain. If you use the ranked/gold camouflage instead of Atago, you'll only need 16,13k XP. That's actually less base XP required than in WoT. There you need 39,15k without any modifiers but only 9,79k XP with +200% crew XP and +100% XP personal reserves. If you add accelerated crew training to the mix as well, the requirement will go down even further, inversely proportional with the amount of crew members. I like this proposal, but it really should have been active when the game first went live. EDIT: I haven't noticed it before, but did the GNB fail-camouflages always give +20% extra credits? I was under the impression (never eyeballed the "reward" before now) that it was the same as the ranked camouflage.

At least this will get the "Scharnhorst is bad/will not work"-crowd to shut up. Anyhow, I am a bit disappointed in our Russian comrades. Based on their behaviour in WoT Q&A threads, they usually nag about one thing constantly, but there has been little fuss about unified accounts lately. I would not mind to read more excuses about that issue.

Good times! (Also, in space, no one can hear you whine...)

If you say so: In any case, I will now uphold what I wrote earlier so I'm out of this discussion for the time being and will do some adjustments to certain preferences in my forum settings. Have a nice day!

One extra gun and considerably better reload brings the (theoretical) chance of fire per second to 9 %, 9,6 % and 7,5 %. The Colorado, due to her slightly better RoF than Nagato in addition to her 36 % (not 32) chance of fire per shell, has the highest value while Nagato has the lowest one. But here's the catch: why would you want to use HE with those ships? Why would you waste 30-32 seconds just because Scharnhorst decides to shoot you with HE? As for theoretical HE DPM, both are better than the Scharnhorst (86400 vs. 97500/91200) but again, Scharnhorst has a reason to use HE while the others do not. If Scharnhorst has a good enough bow/deck armour to semi-reliably bounce 406/410 mm shells, the gun layout means that the ship can just keep the bow pointing towards the enemy and spam HE while the two others will need to show broadside if they decide to shoot HE in return with equal or better volume of fire. Even so, Scharnhorst should win in that exchange since it presents a smaller targets while also hiding the rear section from being lit on fire. There's also the fact (well, WG did write so) that KM BBs have a higher resistance to fire, even further tipping the scales to Scharnhorst's favour.

Indeed, but regular penetrations are still very much doable (Colordo's citadel is below the waterline, so you "only" need to penetrate the belt armour, which has no armour behind it above the waterline, in order to get regular penetrations). Either that, or aim even higher. As such, Scharnhorst captains will have to aim for other sections compared to your normal battleships (above belt, superstructure, under turrets, etc.) or use more HE. Will be interesting to see how the ship fares.

Interesting. Even though we have no idea if WG/Lesta will use the same curves, the penetration seems to be workable at the same tier, being able to penetrate the belt armour of Colorado at ~12 km. I would think that the ship would have to resort to HE-spamming against battleships (which might be very effective, given the fire chance of 20%), but the predicted penetration means that it will probably play like any other battleship at that tier: nuke the cruisers first (15,66 km detection range will help with that) and then get up close and personal with the enemy battleships. The ship also has torpedoes, so that playstyle fits the installed modules at least. Having written that, I really hope it won't be a cruiser-killer at tier 7. It's not like the other battleships are particularly weak towards that class and an even better one will be annoying. Depends on how accurate the guns are, I suppose. (I really hope we get more news soon, because this discussion is getting rather stale and without more official numbers, I believe there is not much left to discuss)

Oh, the irony... Also, please point me to the source that states that Scharnhorst will have worse accuracy than the rest of the T7 battleships. Keep in mind that both the sigma values and the maximum dispersion values are required to confirm your claim. If you cannot do this, I think it's time we all stop feeding the troll/ignoramus.

Here's the difference: you base your claims on information you don't have, while I argue that without said information, there's no reason to make those claims. As such, my stance is more of "innocent until proven otherwise" while you take the more judgemental approach. In any case, I argue that they might work and as such the decision to exclude them is simply lazy. Logically, both economically and learning curve-wise, it does make (somewhat) sense to exclude them, but gameplay-wise, there is no reason unless you have to go over the top with compensations.

No. You base your arguments on facts or educated guesses, not opinions and baseless assumptions. If you do not have any information to back up your statements, you simply do not make the statements in the first place.

Really? The Furutaka plays the same as the Kuma and 155mm Mogami plays the same as Atago in a cruiser-on-cruiser confrontation? As I wrote in the other thread, as long as you do not have to change the overall handling of the ship, I see no reason as to why the Gneisenau cannot have both gun sizes. Whether or not the 283mm guns will be broken (too strong versus cruisers, adequate with HE against battleships) is another issue. To be quite fair, they did exactly that in the first list of arguments: Carnotzet, on 13 July 2016 - 05:08 PM, said: A. Here are the main reasons. -Guns with different caliber on a single ship is bad. -Breaking caliber progression within a single ship line is bad. -Scharnorst. As I also wrote, the reasoning is logical, but it's also very lazy.

Indeed it would. If someone (*cough*owl-people*cough*) could confirm that the WG ship stats also differentiate ships by modules (stock vs. top), the excuse gets even lazier, as it would then be quite easy (well, relatively; it depends on if you would have to change the overall handling to compensate for the lack of firepower) to balance both set-ups. One of the issues is that, if I remember correctly, the developers have stated that they did not want people sailing around with non-top configurations, so it appears that it's more about self-imposed principles than anything else.

Hey, I'm not the one making the rules. I'm merely pointing out the arguments WG/Lesta have used in the past. I do not have to agree with them, but it is logical to have unique premium ships in order to add more selling value. Shouldn't you know that already? Indeed. And the plan for Zao had larger guns. Balance > historical accuracy, as it have been in all WG titles. Except for being an early cruiser which would be popular with the Russian market? And the fact that it was a superior Omaha when released?

No reason to have a Gneisenau with smaller guns when you have the Scharnhorst: the Scharnhorst is balanced (hopefully) with the smaller guns in mind, the Gneisenau is not. There's also the issue of keeping Scharnhorst unique, I would think. After all, what's the point of having a premium ship when the silver equivalent is (almost) exactly the same?

Sooooo... can we expect the Frenchies before the RN if the Dunkerque sells well?

May I point out that it is the producers who are selling the game (and thus bundles) while the developers are the ones who develop it (shocking, I know)? As such, Ev1n is not developing anything (though he may be involved in the planning and prioritising stages) and the developers had nothing to do with the changes to the bundles.

Not even close. The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.

Carriers have the most impact in ranked games (can elect to alwys be top-tier), yet you lose more than you win. Why is that? Is it because you always get "bad teams that do not want to follow your every order" or is it because you generally play sub-par and become a liability to the other team members? Since you have played quite the number of ranked games, the law of large numbers implies the latter. As such you should not be giving advice to anyone, let alone demand that people follow said advice. Self-fulfilling prophecy. You thought the plan was unworthy of your commitment and thus your team mates died because you didn't pull your weight.

I find the lack of self-awareness in this thread extremely humorous. Keep up the good work and maybe you'll "improve" your win ratio to 42 % yet again!