mtm78

Uhm I wouldn't be so sure Yes they do, depending on reference point of the one reading. Which is what makes those options not mutually exclusive. 'Failure forgiving' definitely entails 'laziness' because people might not be willing to learn how to play properly ( lazy ) so they choose the class which is failure forgiving.

Wait, you wanted to get better because of me? You should try to improve because of yourself, I couldn't give a flying f.... if 'others' think I should have better or worse performance But ok, I specifically am looking at your Sims, and I'm impressed you made some definitive improvements Now try and get those improvements to work for you in Benson and Fletcher, both of which tier for tier are as capable as Sims is You call this calculated risks, but I don't agree. I actually count on BB's not hitting me at distance, and if they do I expect them to overpen. 15 hits from a class which I should hard counter is perfectly fine with me. 3 full penetrations usually means instant back to port. That's not good game design.

Tell me how these are actually different from each other? Poll can't be used to determine anything if there is so much overlap with a multiple choices allowed poll

This will be MUCH better tier for tier than a Sims And I do quite well in my Sims so I'm not saying this because I consider Sims bad.

^^ which is strange right.. if you show broadside you're playing lottery, but if you angle you always get punished regardless. It's feels just as bad gamedesign.

Wait no reply to the actually important bit at the start? How quaint. Nice selective reading you do then. Ahh... you want to justify the end of the sentence? Ok, that works for you then. I am not making points to people when I post that, I am laughing at some BBaby which is crying for more check boxes being ticked on that chart. There is no point to be made other than that, as it actually says it all already. Lol I just pointed out you're a BB main, I didn't mention cruiser games but it seems you want to try and use those to make your argument carry more weight? You're also assuming my negative posts about BBaby population are done to influence players. I can't influence players.. This is a feedback forum, and that is what has me posting in this instance. And you might think WG doesn't listen.. but hey they are finally giving IJN torpedoes a higher concealment... so it seems they actually do listen, sometimes, even if it's late. Though yeah, a new player who would actually read more then just me posting images and having a laugh at the expense of yet another BBaby asking for fire nerfs, or 'shooting out of smoke is not historical', they might actually go play cruisers because I never say they are weak ( though they need a survivability buff against lolpen citadels ). I said and will say again that they suffer in BB heavy games. Just as BB players complained about torpedo soup when we had sometimes 6 Shima's per team ( see... I can call BB players BB players if I need to... since this argument was actually correct ). Conversation? Conversations have no meaning, this is a discussion board not a conversation board. And how can you even attempt to use the 'not answering to what I wrote' argument? When what you wrote was just a misconception on your part, or a lie, not sure actually. I never EVER said BB's are OP, or CA/CL is UP. That's just something you as BB main wants to give the impression off to make my arguments sound weaker. Which I don't understand, since I'm not even asking for nerfs on your favorite class, unless you consider a MM limit a nerf. Hypothetical? I never said it was the only reason, I just said they cause static gameplay. Whatever cruisers are left in a BB heavy game, they have to play passive or they have generally short games ( talking average here ). When there are less BB's you can play much less conservative as it's pretty uncommon to get lolpen citadelled by other cruisers. I did ok with that ship before the buffs, can't really say I found her problematic. But then again, we had less BB's then iirc. Imo it's not a per ship problem but we'll come back to that later. I disagree strongly if you would expand that answer into: I want every ship to have a chance against every ship it can face ON HIS OWN. I don't think BB's should be able to deal with a CV on his own with a to high success ratio. I don't think a BB should be able to deal with a torpedo DD on his own with a to high success ratio. I think a BB should be able to deal partially with a gunboat DD, with dispersion BB will need some luck but it should be possible. I don't think a torpedo DD should be able to deal with a cruiser on his own with a to high success ratio. I do think a gunboat DD should be able to deal partially with a cruiser, with a lower then average success rate ( Khaba.. well it's already getting nerved and nerved and I guess a good cruiser captain should ofc win but she is still very strong ). CV's are hard to say, they should be able to deal with anything as long as it's isolated. Edit: ofc I also don't think a cruiser should be able to deal with a battleship on his own with a to high success ratio. See, I actually think that balancing classes so they are stronger combined, a team where the value is higher then the sum of it's parts, is good development. It encourages people to actually display teamwork, and that was one of the biggest reasons I was enthusiastic for WoWs. Sadly, the necessity of teamwork has been going down and down ever since CBT ended. Anyway, I don't want to exclude possibilities of winning unfavorable engagements, where a class can even beat it's counter on it's own due to large skill difference. But equal skill BB should win from equal skill cruisers on his own with very high probability, and equal skill torpedo DD should always win from equal skill battleship on his own with very high probability, and so on. That's one option yes. Or people might actually not queue in a class in which they know they will have to wait longer for a match. Where is "<4BB, 4CA, 4DD> + <6BB, 1CA, 5DD> rather than <5BB, 2CA, 5DD> + <5BB, 3CA, 4DD>)" giving CA's 80% good matchmaking It would be acceptable MM distribution though, if the 4-4-4 is what MM prefers to make, and it only allows 6-1-5 if no other matches can be made after max queue time. Basically that's not any different then what I been asking. Though I would even prefer 3-6-3 or 3-5-3-1 3-4-3-2. edit: didn't even notice the edit you made, and in response to your lower urgency -> I hope the reason of your lower need for urgency isn't because you prefer playing BB's anyway, which don't suffer much. I'd rather people would not argue from a class biased preference

But it does make WG lotsa money!

IJN is getting a nice buff on the Type93 mod 3's for Shima.. feels good on PTS. Yugumo / Shima is getting a small buff on the F3's, and they will consider giving the type3's to Yugumo as well. Sadly no concealment buff's for Shima though

They are forgiving for potato's, even I ( and I am NOT a good BB player ) have decent results in them.. infact I think my win rate is higher than in my other classes ( even if you take out Imperator ). That are not easy to play 'well'. There is a large gap between me and a BB player who actually can play the class optimally. And as said, in most of my cruisers i don't mind having to fight a BB as long as a> I have enough space between us and there are no islands blocking me so I have to show broadside b> I have enough time to work on DoT to kill him. Ofc those nasty stern citadels are annoying as hell but evasion tanking is still a thing. And BB's should generally win 1v1's with cruisers, it's kind of their thing Just as it's cruiser thing to gang up with some allies and gank the enemy rambo BB CV is terribly hard to balance, since AAA mechanics dictate that any team which plays like one ( aka overlapping AAA aura's ) has a distinct advantage over a team which does not. WG can not balance CV's for both scenario's, and their attempts to get a middle ground are not going that well judging from what actual good/experienced CV captains keep telling me ( and what I can observe from playing in games with them ). Adding a succesfull cruiser line will still pull only people who want to play them. Judging from today's poll on this forum, 27% plays BB's because of iconic status. That isn't removed with adding a new cruiser line, not even if it's powercreep stronk. MM restrictions can always allow a certain number of games with bigger numbers of certain classes, must be possible to program a percentage based scheme where most games should be with 3-4 BB's but max can be with 6 or something ( though balancing that on a 'per player' basis might be actually hard / impossible so some players might have 'luck' and get more games on one end of the allowed spectrum.. which is what we already have now so it shouldn't matter right ). That's the same with tweaking MM so we don't get the same problem with BB's as with CV's who sit in queue for 5m and create these imba matchups. Most people don't mind a bit longer waiting times, and if they do I don't mind pissing them off ( since it's either them or me being pissed of because ending up in 6 BB+ MM the whole time ). edit: ow and ofc the meme was there before the image, the image is the source of ME using the BBaby designation pretty often. Before that I just called them 'stupids', morons, whiners, crybabies and so on.

News from RU thread has digest posted where S_O confirms Belfast is 'fine' and will not be nerved ( or pulled from shop it seems ). Guess the potato's playing her badly have influenced average stats enough for WG to claim she isn't overpowered

People still watch iShill? Wew, that might explain some off the problems with player levels If they also watch Notser it might explain why they think IFHE is a good skill for 203mm cruisers to

I guess you miss a lot of my posts and only notice those where I don't offer solutions because it get's tiresome to keep repeating them over and over and still get constant people coming in who 1. keep denying actual population numbers, and offering their own anecdotal evidence claiming DD's are the problem not BB's. 2. keep claiming that high BB numbers actually are not an issue as it's good for the game 3. keep claiming that BB numbers are only so because BB's are to easy to play and thus BB's need to be nerved. All 3 of those are wrong. And for all 3 of them I been arguing against them using factual and substantiated solutions. Like actual population numbers. Like explaining how BB overpopulation is causing static gameplay. Like how BB overpopulation is something which is almost impossible to 'correct' with soft stat tweaking ( nerfs / buffs ). And pointing to my cruiser stats, well thanks, that for me proofs you shouldn't nerf BB's as I frankly don't feel that powerless in my cruisers. But yeah that's probably... And others who been claiming BB's are not a problem are actually being ... As to my signature, THAT explains my use of BBabies. BBabies are people who cry for better BB's, who cry for nerfs on their counters. Those are BBabies. I do have a Yamato.. if I play it, that doesn't make me a BBaby as I don't come on the forum whining for changes which suit only BB's. Want to know the origin of the BBaby 'meme'? It's here -> Contrary to what you might want to believe, that's actually NOT made by me. It's made on NA forum, not even sure by who, and it was made a LONG time ago. Guess what, the BBaby squad actually has gotten most off those boxes ticked by now. So maybe stop trying to claim that not wanting more BBaby whine, or when encountered with BBaby whine, pointing out it's BBaby whine is not a good thing... That's also a LOT more convincing then a BB main coming to claim 'a cruiser probably just overextended' blah blah blah when it's just a FACT that the BB numbers are as high as they are. You can't deny facts with anecdotes, it's just not how things work in the real world. So your last sentence -> .. where you try to 'win the argument' is just using false pretences all over. edit: But ok, let's have some fun: 1. Do YOU think 41%+ BB population is 'healthy' for the game? 2. If not, how would YOU solve it? Guess 1 is no, and if so we're just going to have to agree to disagree.... strongly.

Most BB's overmatch bow armor, so you expect to be citadelled when straight bow on, it's when you're at an angle where shells which overmatch your bow don't have a path straight to your citadel, but you still get citadelled because shell go straight through your properly angled CA hull into your citadel which is where the problem comes from. 5.14 iirc changed the armor model, PN explicitly mentioned BB shells no longer ricocheting from cruiser hulls. I don't want to back to before that patch but a partial reversal sounds nice imho. That would reward proper play/angling and give CA's some much needed survivability buffs.

Performance doesn't mean your arguments suddenly are true, if that was so then Dunkek should have the worst performance of all tier 6 BB's and it doesn't The argument was that DD's choose to die, that they are played 'dangerous' by choice and not by necessity. Now, with the changes to concealment this argument is even more flawed as there is no way to play DD's safe unless you relegate 'DD' to pure torpedo boats. I'm not afraid to admit I perform better on tier 8 and below, though it also heavily depends on which ships I play. If you want to get better at carrying top tier games, I'm not the person to ask for advice

Getting caught broadside is almost always a mistake, or as in your example from yesterday, a case where it just couldn't be helped anyway. And as I said then, a Konigsberg is a CL, it's not meant to 'tank' it's meant to evade. If you're the last alive you're losing anyway.

Guess you don't follow PTS patch notes? They are finally doing it ( not much... .2km for Type93 mod 3 and .1km for F3. You soil your pants? I don't. No it doesn't, getting caught broadside should be punished hard. So you agree, CA's need to be able to mitigate BB damage through angling just like I been saying. Nice to know you agree on something. Senpai, explain me how my changes affects other classes which I don't see edit: ow and btw you seemed to have missed me saying I wouldn't mind seeing 5 BB's in a match... as EXCEPTION not as rule. Thread tittle isn't mine

You're wrong because: 1. you're only attributing BB popularity to 'ease off play' and not iconic / desired class to play. 2. you seem to forget I also been asking for higher ability for CA's to mitigate BB damage through proper angling, as I think both should be done. 3. so when a CV provides vision for his team he's being usefull, but when an IJN DD would do it he's not useful? And you're saying you can't sink cruisers with torps at all? Or torp smokes? Or even kill low hp targets with guns?

Well it was Sub_Octavian who posted it himself, you don't trust WG Numbers from 3rd party stats site all seem to confirm, or even show higher numbers so I don't think using 'allegedly' is fitting really.

Yeah SCRUBS has done the same, and no there is no way to kick people from a public channel which is what you made. In the public lays your answer, you're not missing anything you just didn't think it through when you made the public channel.

Clan's already have their own channel which is only accesible to players in that clan.

Lmao people still passing their 'anecdotal evidence' as being more reliable than actual statistics.

I liked your joke, but it required a Kappa to make it also a good delivery.

Tier 10 is the tier where cruisers can best compete with BB's.. though Minotaur's smoke isn't that absolute, good BB will still devastate it.

Give Germany their own server, problem solved Ow what I said in that quote already been proven false, US has almost same BB overpopulation and not caused by German BB's

Us firestarters? You mean you shoot HE with your BB's? But yeah, five per match SOMETIMES wouldn't be horrible.... you know, as exception. But 3 per team per match is better. Cruisers can also 'start fires' on other cruisers btw