mtm78

That is the rational argument which is supposed to convince me? After having seen the streams and having read the actual aura value's? I'm not a CV player so I don't even really can't be called biased. It might not be the best because it's mostly 3.4km range bofors but it's certainly up there. Yeah I remember people complaining about it, I just don't care. There were also people saying BB's were fine, gameplay with 5 BB's per side is fine and actually even more is fine, and I had to listen to them as well I do not. I didn't grind a Yamato because I hate battleships. I don't have an Arizona while I don't even grind that BB line ( or any except IJN... not because I hate them but because I don't WANT to add to an already imbalanced game ). I don't have a Imperator because I hate battleships, I bought it because I wanted something 'stronk'. But hey, the people who didn't like me saying BBaby when talking about certain players just assumed I hated them, and it seems you're believing that statement for some unknown reason. If I hated battleships that much I would nerf em to the ground wouldn't I? But I only really argued that they should be limited to 3 per team. After doing that if they need balancing, that's a good time to look at them. Performance should be measured in the intended meta. Yeah... I sound so unbiased right? Still no reply. Guess the one being biased isn't me.

edit: sorry forum timed out.

Aha! So basically you're saying that WG better actually reward proper teamplay? Assisted damage should count more in XP / credit calculation? If so, I think I agree completely! This can be countered with teamplay, own DD's screening, own team with radar equipped ships can use radar to spot sneaky spotters. It's not like the one spotting isn't taking any risks coming close enough to spot you? Isn't that the same argument as you can apply as to smoke already having a counter? I actually think this is a good change ( depending tweakage of details ). It's at least a much more feasible idea as the last one.

Rational arguments Still waiting for others.

So no complaints they are finally nerfing her, better than I expected I'll admit to that. As to the rest, seems a lot of people have less trust in WG's balance department than you seem to place in them. Some of us might actually look at server statistics and draw conclusions based on them and patch notes from the recent updates?

How about you reply to my actual reply to you Instead of trying to make this about me, it's not From my posts it's quite clear I don't mind BB's in the game at all. I mind them being driven by mindless potato's who still get decent results because the class is buffed to cater to them. I mind there being 5 battleships in every battle on each side ( at least partially because of this ), I mind having two battleships of a single nation having more games played in a two week period as all same tier cruisers combined. As to reactions to rational arguments, please point them out in public forum I would love that really much.

I am quite certain that we will see more than the normal amount of people throwing their free xp at Megazao as opposed to a Nelson...

Guys, your judgement is just clouded and you all have a clearly visible agenda! How dare you want a balanced game

Screaming brat? Seems you have a Wife/Girlfriend™ problem.

What if they made the flags worth more, so if you wanted to spec into fire setting you could use +30% fire chance flags? Would still end up having less fire chance as a battleship. </sarcasm> That is also what I don't get from some apologist opinions about BB HE -> BB always had option to use HE on angled targets, so if people do it more now who cares? Same thing then that I want IFHE cruisers to also be able to use DoT right? I mean it's two possible ways to inflict hurt, seems pretty fair to me.

So you can actually put out fires on your allied battleships! If WG could give you XP and credits for that you might have invented a whole new class in WoWs -> Fireman / Healer

Sorry that was a brainfart Yeah 130.

If it doesn't it won't actually have much influence since the biggest 'outliers' which benefit from this mechanic are premium. edit: Btw.. I just remember my VMF DD's all have 140mm .... Khaba might be overperforming I don't think they all are are they?

But BB's are not statistically overperforming comrade! Our internal statistics say that BB population is an issue and we're working on it, just you wait for the NerfHammer like we did with IJN torpedoes and now smoke and IFHE!! edit: no really, remember IJN torpedoes and shima soup, and WG's reaction? I do... Why that doesn't happen with an issue equally bad as torpedo soup I don't really understand unless some high up the chain is really really really biased against anything which hurts his precious battleships.

You can still hurt battleships, if you spec IFHE you retain the alpha damage potential by trading away all your DoT capabilities. I would probably NOT spec IFHE on my Belfast, and rely on DoT even if that means I have to play more passive.

Ofc it's not just a vs bb issue But it does affect it nonetheless.

If you agree with the second part you have to agree with the first as it's just a prelude on that second part I never said IFHE was not an issue, I said before it should be toned down. But the issue is, changing damage potential to entirely exclude DoT might affect total damage, but it affects which targets it can effectively damage even more. And you can't really mess with IFHE penetration buff as it's a binary issue, it either pen's every 32mm plate or it doesn't and if it doesn't it might as well not be there at all. Anyway I don't have any issue with IFHE against BB's, working as intended I'd say. I said the BBabies where shooting themselves in their foot when they wanted to trade fires for more 'direct damage'.. edit: well ofc I do mind, I mean IFHE also hurts my heavy cruisers comparatively. I just can't feel any empathy for a battleship being IFHE'd to death I think my heavy cruisers should be buffed instead

The difference is that it removes DoT capabilities ( entirely? depends on value they end up with ). Dpm only works if someone is overextended and can't get away. Ability to set fires also works on targets which are moving between covers. This change to IFHE will make a certain class really happy, as they have a lot of hp to tank dpm with between covers when they know that damage is totally repairable and they don't have to fear a DoT effect even while in cover...

I see your point, it just feels like they are going to address the one thing before the other ( again ) while with addressing one they will actually make the other bigger again. If only WG would just lower the soft limit of 5 this whole 'issue' would be solved without having to worry about the influence of other mechanics.

Yes but more so it removes the DoT capabilities ( almost entirely? depends on values they end up with ). DoT works against battleships even more as dpm, dpm only matters if battleship really overextended and can't get away, while with DoT you can put someone on fire between them being in cover. I know, cruisers aren't meant to deal with battleships, but do we really need to make battleships even easier to play? Is there no way to bring their performance more on the levels we think they should have in a different way? Wouldn't this lead to battleships being more passive, as dpm will hurt them but DoT is less?

Nerfing fire chance won't do anything to take away my alpha damage though ( which is where IFHE became on par with bigger guns, and which due to ROF gives them the DPM. It's never really been about fires when you talk about IFHE right? ). So if this change is about a few OP cruisers which gain to high dpm, change the mechanic or change the individual ships. Yeah I know some 'Belast is balanced' lovers won't like it but hey I own a Belfast and I admit it's broken and shouldn't cry if it get's hit by the nerf bat.

I agree 200%, but they should then also affect a German BB speccing their secondaries with IFHE because German BB's are also a problem. It's not as complete a proposal, it sounds very basic and it sounds like it's a really rough first draft which might become a good plan later on. Yup fully agree, it would actually give more gameplay options not less and that's most of the times a good thing.

Considering the first 'proposal' and WG's track record of reacting to feedback, that 'proposal' not getting through makes a lot of people already happy. Maybe this isn't perfect either, but it's still a lot better as the previous one. So yeah I 'like it' as long as they get the individual ship penalties and general mechanic right so it doesn't punish my 15xmm cruisers which HAVE to use smoke, or my DD's which need it. Sadly, after reading the proposed changed to IFHE I don't have that much trust again, even if they scraped the first smoke change proposal.

HE spam to strong - DE nerf ( less people trying to light fires constantly ) -> also fixed FIRES are OP -> Add IFHE to lower fire chance of cruisers -> fixed Is my ship made of Gasoline -> Fire Prevention -> fixed BB's are to sluggish to do anything -> in CBT every ship got a HUGE rudder shift buff -> Fixed Should replace Fires are OP to -> My RN BB's fire chance is to low. edit: Not to mention 'Nerf smoke' will be next, and 'Torpedoes should be limited' can be ticked if you consider having to choose which torpedo type you have to use an entire battle before you press the actual battle button.

It came to be with the release of the German's though mostly, as they are the most forgiving. A ship like Amagi is used extensively in competitive play, but I don't see the number of games played with that ship in random battles to constitute a problem in relation to the number of cruisers being played. This falls all on German BB's. I posted something last week with numbers from the then past two weeks, two German BB's at tier 8 were played just as much as every tier 8 cruiser. If this is a grind game, and all those cruisers lead to end tiers, and ONE of the German BB's is even a premium which leads nowhere, yeah I'm quite save saying German BB's are a problem. NCal seems a pretty ok ship, yet I don't see it that often either. That's not my clouded judgement, but yes it's part of my 'agenda' which you indeed should darn well know by now I don't think an agenda with the aim of having a fun game is a bad thing Just like RPF or stealth fire or anything for that matter, concealment is situational that much should be obvious. It doesn't matter in most situations since you will have DD's spotting, or the Conq will be visible because it is shooting. So yes, the influence won't be that big I know that. But it is that ONE situation where it's suddenly me vs a Conq, and my cruisers will be spotted first. That goes against a very basic premise about this game I once had, namely that battleships always have worse concealment ( was already not true with some other US BB's vs cruisers they could meet iirc though so again, the influence is indeed not that big. But it's the principle of class boundaries which get muddied again, concealment is just as much a cruiser 'benefit' as having hydro or radar or defensive AAA should be. If things are changed, everything I say about what we know now is automatically outdated so what's the problem with commenting on what we know? Also, from what I heard Sub_Octavian has said on forum that WG feels they are ready to go ( I read quote's, don't know where the original post is ). If that's not true, I would still say the same but I might be more 'political' about it. The pain of NDA's. I am impressed with how you're handling replying to this thread, and dealing with the 'fear mongering'. Not as impressed with the attempt to blame it all on 'my agenda', or 'weaboos' though, as that's just not true.