mtm78

Do Fletcher and Udeloi have the same utility in game? I am not familiar enough with Udeloi, it's stealthier than Kharb but enough to contest caps early game like Kagero and Fletcher? If not, I don't think doing more damage is a bad thing, it makes up for not being able to contest caps in early game. And using XP as comparison when every ship has an individual xp multiplier which WG can tweak ( look at Sims... ) is, sorry for this but..., nonsense. XP is not a direct measurement of 'influence' on the match, if you want to say it is let's do the exact same dmg/caps/defends/kills w/e in Sims and then do it with Blys and compare the 'earned' experience. ps. fully agree Fletcher should be tweaked, it's in all aspects better than Kagero. Except it doesn't, it only does in division.

I don't think it's a surprise I don't disagree with the notion that things aren't as they should be ;)

So it's OK if we take ALL that fire damage and add it to the HE alpha instead off fires then? Since if not, you're shifting balance again by removing damage potential from anything but BB's.

How about you show SOLO stats of Kharb for past two weeks as well?

Caping was already highly rewarded in XP, let's see on PT how the announced changes work out?

Problem identified, it's not the mechanics it's the players. BB survivability is higher then ALL other classes ( except perhaps CV's.. not sure ) but the first thing BB player says when hearing about having to do be actually useful for their team: I might sink. Sorry for picking you out here, if it was anyone else though I would have said the same it's not personal.

Ahhh so remove fire damage from smaller ships where it matters ( you can shoot HE with your tier X BB, it's fine, I rather have those HE shells hit me than AP on my critadels ). How about no? Or wait, yeah ok, let's do that. But increase small gun alpha damage so they don't lose damage potential vs BB's then. Or are you claiming BB's are UP and need buffing against nasty evil HE spamming enemies?

I thought the idea of OP was that the flagship could 'advice' the team what to do... which ofc will never work. It's way better to have a system where you can see from a ship which role he plays in ( AAA support, CAP contesting, BB burning, DD hunter ) Back in CBT if you had a New Orleans for instance, you mostly played as AAA escort, while the Atago's would support the DD's from up close. You knew from the ships how they would play. But ships are being more and more universal, and people seem to think this means teamwork is no longer an essential part of the game. This makes me sad.

Stop using the high damage as a measure of overperforming, Khaba deals damage, that is it's job, it's not good at contesting caps like other DD's so it deals damage. Higher average dmg is fine with me. The higher WR Khaba has was because of divisions .... I made a post on this last week with screenshots showing that if you select weekly stats from Kharb and you change between 'solo' and 'all pvp' you loose a BIG chunk of wr, and when played solo Kharb was only getting 1.4% higher wr compared with the Gearing for instance. And it's a matter of perspective if USN DD's over perform. From my IJN DDs then hell yes they overperform.

9/10 times even in a bad game a good player will have a vastly superior tactical view of the battle then 'the other guy'.

Uhm no, it's meant to be skill based, don't want it up to the 'vote' of randoms that would remove the entire point ( if I even supported OP's notion ). So some random 4x player get's elected 'flagship' and I'm supposed to follow his lead? Yeah right, never going to happen.

It wouldn't it's just an escape for people who don't like not being the 'flagship' so they can report him for being better at the game ( like how Karma works now ).

tl:dr Btw @ OP -> http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/62286-512-changes/page__fromsearch__1 Look an existing topic...

AP spamming from BB's, it got to stop. BBabies asking for nerfs to anything which hurts their big bad battleships, it also got to stop.

Guys please, my son loves minecraft and he loves watching me play ships, if any off your projects are finished and you upload your world somewhere I would make him very happy if you guys could link me to a possible download.

I bet he would make an above average BB captain

Because that is not the (main) issue? If it were, the test with lower repair costs would have seen more aggressive BB play, and there wasn't. It might be a part, but then again don't forget why, WG wants to keep the game healthy and it doesn't work if tier X would be profitable or even breaking even for anything then the top players of the server. There might be changes coming to economy, WG indicated it did want to do something, but I wouldn't count on anything major.

No way, overall goal of a company is making money, they won't limit their potential in the way you're suggesting.

I report them for botting because I can't know if they are having loading issues or if they are just being [edited]messing with their team's 'fun' and chance to win by being afk at the start. And as I said, my backup pc is 8 years old and loads in time, so no sorry your 'some people have bad pc's' doesn't hold with me. You shouldn't be affected by this anyway, because bot reports are manually checked so if it's just 1 in 30 matches there is no issue. If you have it constantly, and more people report you ( which I hope if you do have it more frequently ) then you might get support asking you for a reason. If they find it not credible you would have hardware issues outside of your control, maybe it would have consequences. Lot's of it's and but's, so stop attacking me for doing the right thing ( reporting ). AFK players are not trivial, this is a team game, what happens in a domination match where your team's DD's 'load in' 4 minutes into the game? Think that is 'normal' and the other people on your team don't have a valid reason to report you? And how the heck could I help you out? Why is reporting AFK's toxic behavior but your mindless accusations are not? Protection for people loading in late? Nope, not needed. Fixing why they are too late in the battle, yes please. I like my teams to have just as many active players as the enemy team ( this also means I don't like it when we win because enemy DD was AFK at start ).

Sorry man it's my dyslexia I guess which makes me constantly make those mistakes ( I got other pet peeves, constantly misspelling the same simple words but I'm not dyslexic in the sense that I can't read or spell ). I don't think the answer would be in making CV easier to play, I could be wrong. As indicated, I atm am quite lost in regards of balancing. I don't even play CV but I just miss the times where BB's had to actually stick with their cruisers instead of thinking they will be alright on their own ( and often are ).

Seems I did misread it, sorry. That still doesn't mean those things would be 'easier' to get working ( can you imagine them nerving AAA on BBabies? )... so again, I don't know how to fix it, bow armor change well let's see how it plays out ;) Well they were nerved enough to make BB's suddenly think they should be ok without a cruiser escort.... Ow boy do I miss CBT times!

Ideally a rating should take into account wr, dmg, spots (ships/torpedo), potential damage, cap, defend, plane kills, plane drops disrupted, smoked ally tactically, assisted damage ( both with spotting, and things like taking out an engine on a DD allowing the rest of the team to land easy shots ), and this ofc in relation to the played ship in comparison with server averages for that ship. They tried this in WoT with the wnX variations, they all lacked something ( mainly because not all relevant indicators were being publicly tracked and available through WG API like assisted damage ). But even if it would work, it still doesn't tell me which CA will play as escort, which CA will go support DD's and which DD's will actually contest caps and which DD will go after 'farming damage' ignoring the game objectives.

CV's nerved to death DD's nerved to death, removal of long range torpedo's which were EXACTLY intended to punish camping BB's. Flanking BB's? You mean BB's which use W more than once a game? I don't see them often enough to make them such a big part of a 'solution' HE spam? Omg, just look at the damage numbers. Sorry, your counters don't seem to be working, and the camping BB's are killing the meta for the other classes. Something has to be done ( not saying bow changes are the way, I am not sure either way ).

read: I had a single situation ( I will talk about on forum at least ) where I fired IDIOT torps in front of a cruiser, he then had to stop and got citadeled to crap by a nearby Warspite.