mtm78

This concept is idiotic, i can already imagine who would support that...

During Twitch streams? During KoTS there were raffles which were from WG-EU afaik.

Why not a Sieglinde, deployed so the destroyer can go silent running and escape while only the decoy is lit up?

That's actually not a bad idea maybe lol, if you select deep draught you get 20km so you can hit those BB blobs camping in the back, and if you want the others you go back to the 12km one's. Just as long as you can switch during a battle ( !!!!! plox Sub_Octavian I know you're reading this ) Also thanks for table, I sometimes forget how good a hybrid Leningrad is :)

But camouflage is actually intended to be mostly cosmetic ( even though I always sell those useless type I and III if I got the numbers/names right ). I personally also STRONGLY dislike the display of 'ranked' rank in random battles, there seem to be people who think that if you have a high rank it means you're a good player and your opinion should have more weight as others.... In the matter as proposed, marking could actually add something to gameplay besides just being cosmetic. I think there must be historical references as well, are there no ships which had decals about operations they been in ( so they are 'experienced' at that type of gameplay )? What if you give a ship which is specced for AAA and has good results in AAA screening a decal from some famous battle involving lots of airplanes attacking a naval force? And this I feel can be extrapolated to other aspects of gameplay as well.

It's not '74 other people' and him who think this game has lost it's attraction. If you follow news you will notice that rock-paper-scissors is in full effect, otherwise WG wouldn't be taking away BB AP as such a threat against destroyers ( since forcing reload of HE basically severely limits their ability to offensively deal with DD's ). Or how WG is testing new torpedoes specifically meant to hurt battleships as a concept to perhaps be applied server wide.

The 20km torps have such a spotting distance that anyone who has a single working brain cell should be able to avoid them even in a high tier battleship. The only 'reason' people have to use them are that they are in the game, there is nothing beneficial to them. If you score hits due to area saturation with 20km torps you're basically only leeching of the worst of the worst which eat random 20km torps, it's not really fun for anyone. But if they can make 20km torps with deep draught which are EXTREMELY stealthy but unable to hit anything except capital ships... OR being able to use the normal torps to attempt area saturation against enemy smoke blob, now what would make them actually viable again.

Voice? Don't you mean voices?

I stopped reading after that, or well I glanced over but really couldn't be arsed to actually read pff you.. you .... *pets*

Someone is salty.... As an AMD user, any game moving from old DX to new DX is a good thing. My (also very old) hd7850 has much better Dx11 performance as Dx9.

There are battleships with better angles, this can't be right/final...

Uhm I missed ( or forgot about ) that request, I certainly didn't mean any harm and I am actually quite sure Sub_Octavian knows I wouldn't purposefully do something which would change the 'new' "mutually beneficial two way communication is a good thing" since I am quite happy with it. The communication and recent announcements are imho exactly what I wanted to see and hear, and Sub_Octavian hopefully knows that I been mostly positive about recent directions/decisions. No more cruiser consumable on RN BB's, canceling of results of first smoke test as well as specifically mentioning that it's NOT dd's in smoke which are the problem, how the tier 8 premium IJN DD is balanced, new dev blog, new Q&A section ( though it's not 100% clear on intent / working / limits ). All those things are And now testing of new armament specifically to hurt BB's without hurting other classes, which has been a pain point for WG in the past since torpedoes where the only real singular attack weapon in the game. Gun's ( with exceptions aside ) can use AP and HE, carriers have dive and torpedo bombers ( though not always at the same time ). Why should DD's not be able to switch ammo type so it's more effective vs one target type, as long as the other ammo type is equally effective vs the remaining target type's? I think it's an absolutely stellar proposition and this is the first time I am actually a bit sad I am no longer a supertester ;) But I do have trust in some of the people there who I know agree with me at least partially on lots off things, to try and maximize the possibility of this actually being something which WORKS after going through testing, and it's not a non working bandaid like increasing flooding damage ( which was a worth a try but didn't have any real effect I think ). Fixing lightly armored targets taking massive battleship AP damage, even with a mid 2018 timescale, is also I would like it sooner, heck I would like it now, but I realize this isn't possible so I can live with it.

At the very least the destroyer wasn't OverConfident™ @Unintentional_submarine that's a very interesting question.. because it might lead to possible 'easy fix' by testing if changing overmatch to totally discard effective armor would have the effect needed. edit: just in case it does actually hits a wrong nerve, that wasn't the intend.

And I like having you around. We need people playing battleships ;) Heck what do you expect me to say with 300+ games in the most broken BB in the game We just don't need people asking for BB buffs and nerfs for everything else

O class is also in tech tree right? If so, it's basically just asking for a(nother) reskin so I don't see why this shouldn't happen. I do hope WG will eventually put all the 'minor nations' in an EU tech tree just like they are doing with Pan-Asia ( don't think Turkey can/will have a full tech tree, might be wrong though ).

It's not an Amagi, it's a Kii It does have the same shells so it's going to hurt stuff it hits.. but 1.7 sigma is really and not in a fun way. Not even for my cruisers as I am less likely to dodge full salvo's.

I didn't say it would, I just said that battleships by definition are not easy kills, hence why they attract the worst players more than let's say, destroyers or cruisers.

My moving iceberg mention was in jest, I don't think it would add to dynamic gameplay or much variations considering the speed icebergs float around with irl Dynamic island placement before the start of a match, IF it can be so you're reasonably assured of 'equal distribution' now that is a very interesting concept. And yes, the symetry necessity is limited to those assets ( anything you can place on a map ) which is dynamic. You can make a 'template' with the basic things which stay the same, and only have 'minor' islands change placement/shape and height. This would probably make randoms less of a 'drag' but I am not sure it would fit in a competitive scene.

That is downplaying the trait which lures BBabies to these ships: inherently great survivability. So no they are NOT easy kills, that is why the BBabies take battleships. The same players in any other class would be easy kills most likely.

Last off topic post -> even with my mid tier BB's I will take potshots at DD's if nothing else is available, heck even sometimes if there IS something else to shoot at. Because IF I land even 3 shells, and one of them is a full pen, it's a lot of XP and credits for me, as well as making it more likely I will win. DD damage is worth a lot especially in domination games.

Forum nerved to hard, it's unplayable... now that would be an epic

sssshhh it's much funnier NOT knowing that

It's so funny to see sub 50's argue about other not being good enough at the game. Or about which tactics actually work in what situations. If you really thought you're so much better, why are you actually performing worse in comparison? Also, I'm not a DD player. I'm not a cruiser player either. I'm not a CV player. I'm not a BB player. I play WoWs, which has multiple classes, and I want a fun and balanced environment for every class :) Anyway, the comment was to easy to pick on, sorry as I really don't know HOW you play in BB's. You might snipe at the start ( which is ok ) but you might move in mid game to help your team with your map control capabilities ( read: battleships are scary, use that to bully enemies away from cap zone's so your destroyers and cruisers can contest them more easilly ). It's only the people who think sniping is the only part of battleship playstyle which are the real issue. edit: just as the destroyers which don't play objectives, or cruisers which neglect to support those playing the objectives :)

1. The maps would need to 100% symmetrical or people would complain the map generator always puts them on the 'bad' side. 2. Link me to ANY map generator in ANY game which makes 'interesting and balanced maps', and I'm likely to point out some of the map generating parameters which wouldn't fit in a WoWs map. The concept is nice though, and if you CAN make a map generator which makes balanced and fun maps every time it would be a lot of fun. But it's totally unrealistic at this time, look how problematic it is to create maps from scratch already What I would like though is for a thread or something where people can submit their own user drawn maps, and accompany them with a brief description of scenery / placement as well as the gameplay options intended to take place on it. Maybe WG will see something they like

Are these values datamined from a ST client or from a 'presentation'? If the latter, I wouldn't put too much value on them. As for a 'brawling' IJN BB, wouldn't it be kind of 'stupid' to put out a premium which requires speccing a captain specifically for it, thus negating the entire captain training aspect of it? Ow wait, that's Belfast as well right Still would feel very weird to put in an IJN BB with such bad sigma..