mtm78

Yes I been using the mod for it since it came out. You mean you want more RNG and less skill? Like I said, more RNG. More RNG != more tactical options. I can't even begin to see how it would, maybe elaborate? I don't like adding more RNG.

That's like saying Zao has the same gun stats as Ibuki so it's bad. And Minotaur has the same 152's as Neptune so it's bad. Only Moskva goes up from the 180mm on the Donskoi flamuW

Top 5% on warships today is pretty close to Gearing level of performance in dmg, like a few K. edit: not sure but I think avg difference is way way bigger.

Omg.....

No, no and no it's not. How about you reply to the post which was ( against my better judgement ) actually addressed at you. Spamming HE in a low tier German cruiser is flamuW.

Funny thing is that Imperator has a lower win rate then Arkansas Beta, guess I should play that more if I wanted to pad my stats Or.. my 75% wr Konigsberg?

So you wanted lower fire chance HE, and when told that this would unbalance ships you yourself argued that HE alpha could be raised and that is exactly what you got but it didn't work? You been told again and again that people don't spam HE because it's low skill, they spam it because it works. Most people play to win, winning is more fun. If a mechanic which wins games is 'bad', don't blame the players blame the developers. And give them alternatives, one's which actually work. As to camping, I said it before many times, people do not always camp out of choice. Most people would not be happy with a 47% Konigsberg either. So if they can be more effective sitting behind an island, they will. If you think that's not a good thing, tell WG to make it so they can get the same results using your prefered tactics. In earlier days CA/CL were played more aggressive and that wasn't because of different players playing them but because BB's didn't always delete them no matter angling. CA's could afford to be more aggressive because the game allowed it. You also didn't have 6+ BB's in most teams. Rolling back the armor changes will not happen, and in a way they are more realistic now. But that does mean you can not expect low armor ships to 'manoeuvre' while being visible just to get into a position they can AP the heck out of their targets. This limitation of mobility is what makes HE so dominant, not player choice. Again, people play for fun, and they find being effective more fun then being ineffective. WG has admitted since quite some time there is a BB population issue, up to 40% at the moment. But they haven't done anything, or anything effective at the very least, to address the issue. So until they do, you can keep blaming players for their conservative playstyle and you will continously be laughed at for doing so. Even the only 'actually good played who knows what he is talking about' and who you keep posting video's of if you think what he is saying actually supports you, has pointed out many times he is using range upgrades and spams HE in current meta because it is the most effective. No matter how often you like to claim that he doesn't.

Stop feeding the troll Last time I played Imperator I could bully Fuso's with her

Seems you're the one who keeps up to your usual trolling levels as nothing I actually said in THIS topic applies to your accusations ( or others, if you claim I say camping is fun and engaging.. ). Even in this post you're contradicting yourself and you don't even realize it. Responding to my post = trying to address my concerns. Goes that goes over your head. ps: the only point you have proven so far is that you lack comprehension.

I can not respond to this without insulting you, sorry. ps: The FIRST post on this forum by Sub_Octavian was a reply to one of my posts. Guess I can get the attention of developers just fine

Which CL's? Konigsberg? So it is dumb, or is it successful? You can't claim one and then the other. Reading is hard I guess as your reaction doesn't actually react to what I wrote at all Try again. (ps: WG said invisi fire was to difficult for new players to learn, not that it was to dominant ;) ). So you argue that you can maneuver by using an example of bowcitadels? Somehow you're back to your usual level of arguments

Theory which is correct. Now come up with an alternative which doesn't make armor the decisive factor in engagements ( aka buff BB's again )? edit: btw just to make sure, IFHE was added because some people argued fire chance was to high and suggested that HE should have lower fire chance but get higher base damage to compensate. One such person is active in this thread. He got what he asked for, it just didn't have the effect he wanted. IFHE has made 15xmm - 180mm guns very overperforming, their ROF is high as always and they can have a raw he alpha which is normally reserved for 203mm. This makes certain ships currently able to perform in a manner I don't think WG likes, thinking Kutuzov or Belfast. I do think a change will come just not sure what / how.

I know I watched the entire interview, certain parts I even rewinded because I was a bit... unsure if I was understanding it correctly That is the problem. If you want to balance Shima just on torpedoes vs capital ships, you can have games where WASD.exe wasn't running and you get monster scores, or you get games where both minimap.bat and WASD.exe was running and you're as ineffective as possible. But if you make it a better gunboat then it is, you get generic ships which isn't good for the game either ( diversity attracts players ).

The problem with Shima is that it's to unreliably. If you build a ship around it being the best torpedo launch platform you know this already, as torpedoes are the least reliable weapon in the game. Unless using F3 but even someone as flamu has stopped using them with the amount of anti dd measures in game.

What I said is obviously wrong btw, it might be close to Gearing but that doesn't make it second, I mean Kebab is still best performing tier X DD. They are not, some people make them work pretty well. I don't like them though, well not besides Akizuki ( for a short time to go though now.. ).

Did you watch the Q&A on flamu's stream? Shima is 2nd, and very close to Gearing... but that was top 5% and based on damage.. then S_O did admit that since Shima was designed to go after capital ships it should have higher dmg. But he never said that Shima underperforms, certainly not directly.

Just as Shima you mean Idk, could very well be. The ways of the WG are hard to follow, let alone predict.

So go into cap, kill enemy DD, then run away and let some other class leech the cap points later? Doesn't seem worth risking my hp for

Removal is final, what Earl means is that WG will consider other buffs to ships which will underperform due to it.

As with most topics, you seem to always be very selective in what you remember from discussions in the past. 1. HE isn't OP, HE is the only viable ammo against well angled opponents, be it BB's or even CA's. AP is and always had been the best ammo against anything which shows broadside, or low armored targets which you can overmatch no matter the angle. 2. Some of the camping ( not all... ) is not due to player choice but to necessity. Just as smoke 'camping' ( did you forget to mention that, normally you always add that into this discussion as well ). Ships like Shorsh or any RN CL do not have workable armor ( and the funny thing, Belfast is actually better armored then the others ). You can not 'angle' in a RN CL. So what they do isn't camping, it's tactically making use of terrain to overcome their weaknesses. And if you remove those weaknesses, they turn into yet another CA. I don't mind people in ships which depend on exploiting smoke or terrain, to actually do so skillfully. The only camping I would like to get rid off, is BB's who sit at their max range. WG is adding 5% dispersion to the concealment module, but that's not going to be the answer ( not sure what would be though ), because more RNG is not the answer. 3. Invisi fire was never a dominant part of gameplay. Unless you have a Zao or a Chappy or a Blyskawica, you didn't have large enough windows to make it your primary gameplay style, and even if you did you would not get very good results. That is why this change won't really be that bad, stealth fire never was the best part of a ship. That doesn't mean the manner in which it's changed is good. First of all, it will make the game more smoke heavy, since being spotted for 20s more after the local engagement has ended will force more use of smoke. Secondly it will make the game more passive, as DD's can't fade back into concealment that fast. 4. Manoeuvre to get pens sounds nice. But only works with 12 CA v 12 CA. In current BB heavy meta, you can't really do this without getting deleted. And even with few BB's, nerfing HE ( again... ) would just make them to strong vs other classes. You might have good performance on ONE mid tier glass canon and on ONE IJN torpedo boat, you still haven't shown that you can play the other classes / type's of ships. So why are you making assumptions which require an understanding on how they play?

No bot account, it was his for a long time edit: he might be paying someone to pad his stats though as he was getting called out for them every time he mentioned his 'way how the game should actually be played',

This worked well on PTS, we were losing the domination game, they already had two caps and close to getting the 3rd, me and my fellow DD's couldn't contest because team was 10km+ from us and their team was right behind their DD's... so I asked if we could get some help as we would lose otherwise. Suddenly, a FdG found his W key, pushed into the cap and we all smoked him up in turns if needed, we screened him from torps and tried to push back the enemy DD's. And we could do this because we, the DD's, weren't the focus of attention every time we got spotted. I just fear we won't find many manly BB's on live server.

Except for staying detected for at least 20s after you dealt with that enemy DD contesting the cap with you...

I been in ST for over a year, I kind of know a bit of it So I kind of know how developers might THINK a change will have a desired effect, they are often wrong. Kind of how they added stealth fire 'by accident' to start with you know. edit: WG themselves have said MANY times that they actually can not predict how playerbase will actually use the mechanics they put into the game. That is why they keep adjusting them. We seen more changes since the game went out of beta then during beta fase.

Don't you claim that WG knows what they are doing and as such we should play ships as 'designed'? So you're telling people with Minsk to use 4km torps to go after BB's? Or did you just admit that the ships are designed to outgun DD's, so they are designed to hunt DD's, and to hurt bigger ships with guns from range since their exceptional high speed allows them to evasion tank at range pretty reliably? That is their intended role. Other ships, like for instance USN, can do both. They can use long range stealth fired torpedoes against BB's, and use their guns to hunt DD's. Just as the premium Leningrad which can also do this. These are called hybrid DD's. And again, they are in the game, put in by WG, deliberately and not by accident. Hardly useless, just way more 'situational' then long range torps which can do all of the above and be shot at targets from stealth. And since you admitted that the team with gunboat DD's which take out the enemy DD's is usually the team which wins, you still claiming they aren't playing for the team is kind of weird. Isn't ensuring your team wins the ultimate form of teamplay? Short range torps = anti DD torps for use in knife fights. Or suicide rushes against BB's. Or ambushing Amoeba's in BB's which think smokescreens aren't occupied by DD's with torpedoes / islands are fine to pass by closely without knowing if a DD might be lurking behind one.