Hirohito

Absolutely, but the opposite is also true. I tend to get a "first blood" on the enemy DD quite often, and from there on onwards it usually spirals out of control for the enemy. There's no way that my overall WR goes down in ranked (overall) compared to randoms, outside of statistical flukes. If anything, its far higher for ranked than it is for randoms (over time of course).

You do realize that PR is hardly relevant to your WR, right? PR is a function of how much damage you did, how many kills you got, how your WR is, and how all of this compares to the server average. Getting high PR isnt hard at all, just hop into a BB and start farming damage, making sure you get above the server average (which isnt hard to do if you set your mind to it). PR for instance does not differentiate whether or not you did damage to a DD (which tends to influence your WR a lot), compared to a BB (which hardly affects it, and mostly should slightly drag it down over time). And since its easier to get PR from farming BBs, the PR score shows you as a "better" player if you did 20k to a BB, compared to 10k to a DD, even when the latter 10k is what will really influence the game for you.

Absolutely, and I consider low 40% players (the kind that yolos early for no gain) the worst kind of players to have on a team. Last game I had for today had 2 unicums and me against against a full orange/yellow team, but on our team our remaining 4 players were in the deep red. While we got us good trades early on, the whole team suddenly collapsed as the "red flank" just threw 4 ships away in the span of 2 minutes. Was pretty much unwinnable at that point. All in all I don't complain though, these things happen. A few days ago I got 85% WR after 13 games, so in the grand scheme of things it's all cool.

That's true and flukes do happen in the short term, but when talking averages over large samples of games, you won't get that kind of "bad luck". His current total ranked WR is at about 50%, while his average for randoms is 50%, which is expected. Sure he might deviate upwards a couple % for ranked in total (if he's on an upwards trend of improving, the ranked stats are far more recent and likely to be somewhat better than the overall random WR), but nothing out of the ordinary WR wise goes on in the OPs case. Had he been a 60% player getting 45% WR after 120 battles, sure, that's extraordinary statistically speaking. Short-term flukes we all have to deal with from time to time, but those won't meaningfully drag down the average over time. It sucks when it happens with bad teams, but strong players especially bounce their WR back pretty fast once the fluke is over.

Of course, but when we're talking statistical averages, that doesnt really matter. The OP had a somewhat unlucky streak in ranked judging by the recent games, but not a reasonable deviation from the mean. I'll happily admit that I play like crap sometimes myself, making dumb plays and getting sunk for it, but that's on me and I honestly deserved it when it happened. Just the other day I cost my team the win when we were 3v2 and I had a stalingrad holding up mid in greece. Had I either fully committed to yolo rushing him, OR decided to go back cap them, we woulda won. Instead I halfway yolo-rushed without properly closing the distance instead turning out, because I wanted to farm out their GK for some extra damage, and promptly got sunk while my torps left Stalingrad live. Well deserved -1 to me for that dumb play.

Ignore me if you want to, but your stats show you around the 50% mark. You played about half of all your random games in divisions, which overall yielded you about 50% and lately a bit more - but nothing out of the ordinary. Your PR stats are for ranked likewise not indicating top play on your behalf. If you wanna get mad about it, be mad at your own statistics, not me.

You being at 60% was lucky on your part, as you seem to be overall at the 50% mark as a player. The statistical average is just pulling you down to where your "true" number is, given enough time.

Well, I'm gonna be frank here, but according to the stats you aren't that strong of a player, and you do tend to main a class (BBs) that aren't the most influential to begin with and which rely on their teams to have impact (especially when you're not that strong of a player). You also play a lot of divisions which recently seem to have been giving you artificially high WR scores, but this comes back to bite you when you play ranked (where you cant division). Your (recent) average WR in ranked seems to be a bit lower than your usual average, but well within reason when looking at the overall numbers. TL;DR: Your teams are not really at fault here for your WR.

Hardly any reason to restrict Emilio, as the boat isn't being used much in CBs and is otherwise pretty trash for the mode. We used it in my last clan, and mostly the Emilio was just getting consistently zoned out by other DDs, eventually getting chased back to our half of the map and unable to grab map space for our side. The yolo runs worked some of the time, but usually got shut down hard by the enemy DD, radar or hydro, or enemy ships positioning in a way that punished such a play (not always getting sunk, but sinking our Emilio DD in return once the charge was over).

Don't get me wrong, seen a lot of GA/Musashi/Alaska/Mogador so far like everyone else has (and limiting that is fine, don't get me wrong), but overall the ship pickings seem a lot more varied compared to last season's T10. I hope this is not a one time only thing, as T10 especially could need some restrictions of this sort.

I am a bit curious to the reasoning behind said limitations though. T9 sees a rather large variety in ships overall compared to T10, where it has typically been Stalin spam, Petro spam, occasionally some Kleber/Yueyang spam. Then they go ahead and bring in the hammer on T9? (DIsclaimer: I'm not generally opposed to limiting ships, but T10 could certainly have needed that a long time ago. I hope they do so in the future also when the meta seems to get very stale, and not this time only)

You can beat a CV with RN DDs especially. Get in, cap, smoke up when you are sure to be plane spotted, and keep making yourself a hard target and smoking up on cooldown for the remainder of the game. Gets you a well deserved points win.

Dumb players should get angry at themselves for throwing a win like that. Blaming the other guy, pfft. Had the same in my game here, just reversed. Massa vs Hipper on Sleeping Giant. That map is unwinnable for a cruiser if the BB just caps the mid and uses the low island to stay torp safe (and still able to shoot across it, lol so unfair). Which is what I did, forcing him to yolo charge me in order to not lose on points. I don't hold it against him though, there's nothing he could do to win on that map, it just favours every other class but cruisers.

For (especially) German BBs and select USN BBs (somewhat), their whole design was built around capable secondaries. Without they (especially German BBs) are just not competitive ships at all, and would need a massive overhaul if secondaries were not to be a thing for them. German BBs without secondaries as a selling point are just a shitty generic BB with worse dispersion, massive size and terrible concealment otherwise (also known as "floating damage pinatas").

Had the same thing happen to me, just in the opposite manner. Me (Massa) against a Prinz Eugen. Had us a little back and forth reversing between the 2nd and 3rd lines to get a cap lead, until he got fed up and took the mid. At that point I figured I might as well just give up, as the best I could have hoped for was a ram to draw the game, while with any brains (he seemed rather good on the capping game we had between ourselves) he should be able to at the very least draw the game, with good chances of killing me. This map really invites ramming (wasting both players' time) or a CV that almost literally gets to shoot fish in a barrel. Really dumb map.

I know that, but it wasnt clear if he complained about friendly DDs or enemy bot DDs, so I assumed the latter.

I bet that works against most players actually, even though I play Massa and only face Tirpitzes and dunno how that torp run actually works out most of the time for you guys. You gotta up your game against a competent BB that tries to kite you though. :-)

Mmh, a smart Tirpitz (very rare) can win if he plays it smart. The one thing I worry about in Massa is if a Tirpitz chases me off the cap, then dips in behind an island before he leaves the cap in order to get it. At that point the Massa has to get back in to dislodge the Tirpitz, which in these small maps often risks getting torped or jumped with AP at an unfavourable angle. Heck, the tirpitz can even just kite around islands if he really wants to be annoying, steadily letting his points tick. Fortunately, 95% of the Tirpitz population (like last time, two years ago or whatever it was) just want to rush in to use their torps, and thus lose against the kiter.

Had fun so far with 3 wins (Massa) against Tirpitz, Bismarck and Tirpitz again. Had fun mind you, until the 4th game loaded and I saw two brothers... on epicentre mode. How the flying f**k could WG come up with such a retardedly dumb decision, as to include two brothers on epicentre mode in a 1v1 format!? A CV here is uncatchable, and anything loaded with torps more or less auto wins (except against a CV) in a narrow channel where you get the max points from capping the middle. Even any torp threats aside, you cant afford the other player to cap mid as you'll just lose on points then. This fact however just invites ramming the other player in the mid, which just wastes both players' time. The f**k is this crap? I went from extatic over seeing 1v1 being a thing again, to extremely let down once I saw this map. Considering to just not play the mode anymore with this map in place. Shame, what a wasted opportunity this was by WG.

Now this is the part I don't get. BB whining aside, he might have a veeeeery minor point (no, actually, he wouldn't) if he complained about DDs torping him from stealth. But charging him in the open? That's every BB players wet dream, now you get to blap the DD as he threw away his one big advantage, stealth. Or is this BB actually so terribad that "not being cowardly" equals a DD to be spotted and sit quite still until the BB can sink him, which is his divine right as a BB player?

I beat most tirpitzes with massa last time by just kiting away. Trick was to get close enough to interrupt a cap, then turning away and keeping him inside 11,3 kms for secondaries to work while denying torps. The heal made the trade favourable for massa unless RNG massively screwed me over (Main battery shell hits and fire chance).

Met some of those last time. You most likely outright lose if you meet a CV, unlike other DDs that can smoke cap. Had the frenchies both try to cap and run and rushing me down in haku. They both just died. Perhaps you stand a chance with the reticle nerf on rockets now, but either way I wouldnt count on french DDs.

Those are the BB mains whining about broadside cruisers, not "99% of players". I generally have seen plenty of "git gud" answers when DDs complain about radar on these forums, so I don't get your point here. And I have never really seen widespread Cruiser complaints that their radar is too weak for punishing DDs, which would be the closest analogy to the BB/Cruiser interaction you just described. Heck, personally I loathe BB mains who complain about Cruisers not getting blapped, and this is coming from a DD main that generally feels more threatened by cruisers than BBs.

I wasn't arguing that there aren't consequences for the Moskva/Stalin for getting spotted, nor did I state that "radar is OP". Just that Soviet radar is more potent overall than US radar, which I find much easier to deal with in general due to the short range and exposed position something like a Des Moines has to take in order to cover the cap. When I look at a lineup on maps with many islands for instance, seeing as Des Moines worries me less than a Soviet long duration radar that goes unspotted. On most maps you can kind of tell where the USN radar sits and how close you can operate, whereas you might be very deep into an unspotted Soviet radar range. To be safe in such scenarios, you need to play way more cautious than if there only was a Des Moines to worry about, as so much of the battle space gets restricted. Overall, I think the Soviet (long duration) radar made the USN one relatively worse off during the last change. The render delay hurt USN radar, while the "compensation" in forms of 0,1km range increase for Des Moines was laughable at best, while for Soviet radar they got both 0,3 km range increase and more importantly, it shored up their one supposed weakness (duration). Edit: I also tried the "burning it to death" that so many on the forums claimed was such an easy solution. Loaded up HE on my Thunderer recently to test it vs a Stalingrad, and it took me a good 8 mins to get the f***er down, and he only went down after I got help from friendly ships in taking down the Stalin. With the usual WOT-style forward/reverse shenanigans the Stalin just retreated to heal back up, before continuing his nonsense, all the time maintaining radar cover and broadside Stalin AP threats in the general area. And this is with a Thunderer firing HE, which supposedly counters Stalingrad (tried AP before as well, way too unreliable on a bow-in Stalin). Spending half a match taking down one ship hardly qualifies as a "counter" in my book.

I do. I used to hate USN radar more than Soviet radar when I was worse at DDs and tended to get caught in them. I usually don't get caught in them anymore, but the problem with Soviet radar is that it zones out DDs in too wide of an area, while lasting pretty damn long these days. A well positioned Soviet radar can zone out DDs from two caps, while USN radar has to push up pretty close to one cap to cover it, thereby being more at risk of being shot at by BBs and eating torps. Note that Petro radar is quite ok to handle for DDs due to its low duration, but after the last radar change (6 second delay in exchange for longer duration and slightly more range), those Moskva/Stalin/Nevsky radars now last for 30 seconds (36+ with modules/skills), which is too long to just tank through. Back when the Soviet radars were usually lasting 20-25s, you could in some cases just tank through the radar duration, but that's not a good solution these days. While the 6s render delay hurt the overall effectiveness of all radar, the Soviet one got comparatively buffed to USN when they added flat duration and (slight) range on the radar. The Soviet radar was balanced around long range and short duration, but by getting a flat duration increase the Soviet radar is just that much better than USN atm. That, and the fact that most DDs lack torp options against 12 km radar.