mtm78

Rule #3 - no voting outside of anything but performance Not that I don't think I should exclude a lot of votes in this thread then........ so nvm me Blyskawica:26 + 1 = 27 Blys = gud Belfast:27 Scharnhorst:20 - 3 = 17 Least versatile... but I have to admit I perform better in her then I do in Belfast.... so I should have downvoted Belfast but I didn't because I feel the performance diff is due to me and not the ships

New posts -> filtered by all English speaking sections, usually skipping on Aircraft carriers section. If a topic is hot, I usually check it out. If a topic has an interesting title or tags I will read it. if a topic if made by someone I know, I will read it. If the topic is made by some other people I know, I will ignore it.

Any combination of good players is dangerous.

It's always the wife isn't it

Yeah I know it's not that bad it's just... ^^^ this. I don't want other IJN DD's to get the perk it's not really needed, but Akizuki would be nice. Even if just to add to the AAA daka daka

WG: Akizuki will not get defensive fire consumable because we want to keep it an USN trait... ----- WG adds defensive fire consumable to VMF DD's..

No you didn't. Because if you did you would have download the same as me and why don't I have 'malware'? Maybe you visited a few sites you shouldn't have while waiting for the download to finish.........

BB heavy meta is because of off development roadmap and GE BB release. RN CL are to high skill cap so not enough players stick through with them. Mighth help oversaturation when we get more DD lines/split and more cruiser lines. And to your World of Battleships -> edit: and this will be my LAST reply to you on this matter UNLESS you actually use other arguments which are worth talking about Added the development roadmap for last couple of patches ->

I already said I do not want to keep in a circle jerk discussion with someone who has admitted he wants World off Battleships. So yeah ->

ps:

Tirpitz is fine, it's me who is tomato with her! No seriously... though when it was 4x% wr it were old stats from testing which should not have been visible on public profile.

The behavior went downward from OBT on but I don't think it's just about players, but more about game content changing. And yes, there was an age where CV was TOO strong. But even in those times, playing with one of the TOP CV players from the server in division, we lost games against a team with NO CV. Want to know why? They all played as a single fleet and the overlapping AAA and multitude of DF equipped CA's made Sharana unable to wither the team down. Now our team was just utterly bad, we couldn't pick off the AAA cruisers and we had no DD's to scatter the grouped ships a bit either so that didn't help. That's off course just an anecdote, and well looking at CV win rate's at the time ( there was no mirror matchmacking back then ) and their damage, yeah I can see how they at least seemed broken. You also got to remember that CV's had high XP gain back then, because it was the same dmg based gain as other classes, and this lead to dedicated CV players having higher tiered CV's playing mostly against lower tier ships for quite some time. This also skewed their statistics.

Now the above is out of the way let's try and be constructive -> Remember the old CBT battles? Where you had carriers in almost every match and AAA wasn't buffed so high and BB's had not a chance off survival if they went yolo to a cap / flank alone / noobing at the blue line? We had fewer BB's back then, it was much less static gameplay since cruisers could actually push up more aggressively. Now I am NOT asking for Haku buffs.... infact if they roll back some of the BB AAA buffs so they rely more on proper cruiser support I would think Haku could use a nerf as well. And CV balance is also shite, there is a reason you don't see many USN CV's. But yes, CV's need rebalancing, and with CV's the entire AAA thing as well. I am still hoping this will be done in conjunction with UI rework... someday... soon™ https://github.com/wows-stats/wows-stats you mean this Be glad I don't play CV's

Says Ms. damage whore who forgets winning is the important part of battles ps I did, it said you had them hidden, you just unblocked it earlier today ( edit.. or was that the other guy arguing about anything but BB's with a hidden WG profile.... I might be wrong... not sure, so many people with hidden profiles active on forums lately ).

The first thing I do when checking a profile is NOT win rate, NOT damage or any of those performance indicators, because they are not all saying. But class distribution pretty much is telling, just as battles played on specific tiers, or battles played in PvP to start with. And if someone with a 44% wr on his battleships claims it's because of 'broken' carriers, 'broken' destroyers and 'broken' HE from cruisers, I will point out that I can name several players with battleships stats which are a lot better then his, while they also meet the 'broken' carriers, 'broken' destroyers and 'broken HE' from cruisers. Leading to the conclusion that it's not those things which are 'broken' but that the guy making those statements should look inward for reflection and stop putting the blame outside of himself. Flamu's 0.6.0 build for Hindenburg dropped range for reload module... Yeah I know right I think I will keep my range module

People claiming CV's are the spawn of satan are deluding themselves. But hey, unhide that profile so everyone can see you play battleships exclusively, that way everyone can form the right opinion on your ulterior motives for posting what you tend to post. So, my Hindenburg / Donskoi / Zao should have same range as BB's? I like this idea. I think you should go work for WG

But when I do it there is a relevance, not like you here who tried to claim I mentioned stats right here in this thread. I could ( mention stats ), and they would point out BB overpopulation in certain tiers, something even WG has admitted to, but you would just argue that you think more BB's is good for the game ( with other words, even WG is wrong in calling it overpopulation ). So, I didn't want to repeat that circle jerk at neassa, sorry. Doesn't mean you're less wrong, just means I don't want to argue with people claiming they are right because they have an opinion.

hiding his profile

WTF???? Where do I mention STATS? Stop crying

True, but most of the times there is far more space between the enemy DD's being spotted and the friendly DD's then 15km so if you want to be 13-15km from enemy DD's you're still a far more attractive target for the enemy BB's Anyway I try to mostly play as you describe and it does work, but it doesn't feel as 'thrilling' as cruiser player could be during CBT or even earlier OBT/release as there were far less battleships and cruisers would be fighting each other at much shorter ranges.

seems that way

I play 3 classes and I want limits on all of them Return to CBT meta please, will be so good for everyone! edit: before being called out: ok ok you can limit DD's to 3 as well max if you really insist

All players. Balance for only good players aka lower skill cap is bad. Balancing for only bad players aka lower skill requirement is bad. Balancing for only average players leaves possibility of good players overperforming in them due to non determined skill ceiling, or bad players underperforming in them because skill bottom isn't set properly.

In my experience it's easier to focus on two, if you have enough DD's a lone DD can go for the uncontested/ignored cap but often times if you split in 3, your team members facing the superior force will die before retreating and this costs you more possible victories then you gain from removing more ships from that group to go for the 'least attractive' cap zone.