mtm78

Assenoff, on 07 February 2017 - 09:41 PM, said: Back to the main point - the numbers for torpedo damage are wrong. In real battles torpedoes never do the listed damage. When I think about it, I do not remember ANY torpedo(es) hit(s) that did maximum damage. I have over 7000 battles, half of them with destroyers ... Which is explained already, it's the max damage possible without taking into account damage reduction and damage saturation?

I had another guy making the same bet right after CBT ended.. I had it in my signature for a long time until I got bored of rubbing it in. Playerbase seems to be stable/growing ( taking into account seasonal changes which all MMO's go through ) by WG's own words, and there are besides the bad things also positive things happening / coming. I don't see the game dying 'soon'

Unless they remove the radar ofc

At least with Fint you can buy a Belfast now in the premium store....

But it doesn't NEED to be so blatantly unbalanced, that's the point. edit: ranked already is rewarded by a shitload of flags and cammo's and other stuff given to people when reaching certain ranks, WG does not need to give more incentive in ways of totally unbalanced ships. A premium high tier ship should be reward enough on it's own. We already gave a Missouri which people can exchange doubloons for free xp for and which brings radar to a class which should never have radar, and now WG wants to put one up as reward in a class which definitely shouldn't have it.

I hate this aspect of WG's policy. Yes, reward ships should feel like a reward... but there is a reason Flamu puts Flint in the same category as Belfast for coming ranked season.. and that is not because it is balanced with regular ships. And now a DD with good concealment AND RADAR?

Didn't it read they can be sold at the current buy prize? Which should imply we should be able to sell them for the lowered price mentioned? Or am I missing something?

Depends on how reliable your damage output is when doing both no?

I hear Mikasa should not use it's main guns at all, but just set auto pilot and go make coffee and come back to see 4 secondary kills

Ofc, just before we can sell them because they are worthless they lower the price Their positive feedback is given through the wallets of many people

I can't understand the whining about fires and HE, yet some people still whine about it daily. How that is related to the actual topic, I don't know. So I'll let them just do their damage saturation tests

Have you tried finding some people to play with? Won't fix your matchmaking, but it will allow you to learn from them and it's more fun to. But yes, the downside of tier I - IV protected MM is the shark tank you are thrown into when your reach tier V.

I dropped from 3 to 1, hence my question How does: Fit in the above list? This is a not fictional example of something I foresee being posted in the near future, not by me but by many many others. And I fully support this, ofc the regulars just chuckle when reading the drivel but for some new guy who might think it's actually correct it's quite the misinformation ( like using a 15% win rate ship from his port with one battle result screen as example on how ships should be played... ). I am sorry, but in these cases pointing to the statistics in order to dismiss the notion is not toxic imho. The toxic part was the part which caused people to post statistics in order to counter it. But that is my opinion. And I would really like to have an official and fixed WG stance to refer to, even while I understand the difference in that example you gave, it's never really so clear cut in reality, which is the issue I am trying to point out. So, directly using the example quote, is this 'toxic community using statistics and profile information to abuse people' or is it a healthy community trying to prevent pollution in the forum by people who have opinions based on lacking understanding of game mechanics? Same applies to people posting about game mechanics or class balance, and who have hidden profiles. Lots of these posts are made, and every time I just quote.. .. as there is no point in arguing with someone about game mechanics or class balance if they are hiding the indicators which could show either clear bias or inability to understand current game mechanics. Case in point: someone complaining about fires and HE being the cause of static gameplay. Without a hidden profile, and seeing a 90% + preference for BB's with an account performance of 45% or less, community chuckles and disregards en public while pointing out that fires + he are responsible for a far smaller part of damage inflicted to BB's in reality then it's being attributed by this person. With a hidden profile, this is not possible. But it's still very much likely this is the case. I am sorry for trying to get clear cut answers regarding this, but you/WG have said these new rules are here to lower 'toxicity' and these questions are aimed at making sure this effect is achieved ( by making these distinctions more clear to everyone ).

Because being -2 isn't that big of a deal, it teaches people also how to play tactical when they are not all equal ( like, ganging up on someone stronger then you which would beat you in fair fight 1v1 ). Wasn't really clear from your first post, since this isn't a 'new topic'. Using search would have given you the exact same answers so either live with some sarcasm or use that next time

Which is why there is such as a thing as teamplay, making use of CA's defensive fire and even other BB's overlapping AAA aura. And a larger number of strikes, with return flight to carrier and time to target, take up a large part of a game. So again, it's a good thing BB's sink, what is the point in CV's if they couldn't counter the class they intend to counter. ps. nowadays CV's focus more on killing / neutralizing enemy DD's then damage whoring on BB's. Since there are SO MANY of those all camping in the back on the same map square, the overlapping AAA and the long time to target and back is just not worth it. Ow and because DD's being dead means game is usually won

Ofc, if a CV can keep attacking them. And they should ofc sink, CV's are their counter. But they don't sink from a single strike unless lack of brains and bad rng.

AA is badly designed because there is to much rng in it, and it's badly balanced because to many BabyBoats been buffed so they don't come cry on forum about OP CV's even if they do not stick with a CA with defensive fire. ^^ fixed that quote off yours

Excellent MM, there are more cruisers then BB's! Divisioning with GS with tier 7's = your fault, not the MM. Or did you think that by divisioning with tier lower you would be top tier more often

Bleh? I reacted literally to something I quoted sorry if it doesn't suit you.

MDIV League? http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/69453-mdiv-warships-league-announcement-update/

1. Islands are situational, can't find spots where you can use them on all maps and in all situations, it's the other way around. 2. Smoke screen doesn't last whole game. 3. As you say when BB shoots you, and if they aim well, they do massive damage, which is very stupid. But HE is broken because it can damage BB's which angle properly. ps one of those 3 points are false. So you misplayed by being on the wrong flank? Wow, and then blame HE? Wow again. And you CAN mitigate HE + FIRE damage, both is light damage and fully recoverable by your heal. Unless you misplayed and are getting focused by half of enemy team. ps -> https://www.twitch.tv/flamuu go watch that and tell me again BB's are worthless and you can't support your team in one because of the OP BROKEN HE.

Does everyone start with a clean slate? I mean, I seem to still have a warning in effect, so just wondering Overall, I think the simplicity is very nice. I do foresee some adjustment issues off course. I would also like some clarification about when mods are allowed to call the reference to statistical performance as 'stat bashing' or in the new rules I guess 'insults' and when they are not, due to the reference to statistical performance being relevant to the discussion at hand. Meaning; when 'opinions' are posted by people who are clearly showing a bias, or a lack of actual understanding of in place game mechanics, is it an 'insult' to reference this inability to understand game mechanics being clearly shown in a person's performance indicators ( 'profile' )? Or to point out someone has a private profile and as such is prohibiting community to actually accern his/her understanding of game mechanics and/or certain bias? Currently moderators allow such when they feel it is not 'stat bashing' but relevant to the discussion at hand, but this is always quite ambiguous and I had hoped the new forum rules would mention this explicitly, certainly since a lot of claims of 'toxic' forum community resolves around people who seem to think profile's are 'not relevant at all' in discussions about game balance or mechanics. edit: Also, has this always been there -> since I can't recall forum sanctions ever extending to full WG accounts ( maybe with excessive behavior like real life threats... but never against people who repeatedly broke 'lesser' forum rules )?

Curious, what is his main account again?