mtm78

I do not mind anyone playing what they want, but as said above the gameplay in PvE and PvP is very different because the AI can not mimic human behavior. The behavior you see in game is not the same as I see, therefore your advice should be limited to what you got experience with: PVE. I am sure there are many people who can use your advice and assistance as you seem to do well in PvE, but you can not extrapolate what works in PvE directly to PvP.

It plays like a CL or Destroyer Leader anyway... I guess 'Frigate' would also be the designation it would have gotten if it were USN when they reclassified their ships in 1951. But I don't think it is beneficial to add another designation to the game

I think you got it the other way around, we are trying to point out the relevant bits but it seems you're more focused in stating that any mention of statistics in any situation is by definition toxic behavior and it is not. Statistical performance is the key factor in balance discussions, because balance is a statistic. Player perception, aka fun, is not something which can be objectively discussed because by nature it's subjective. When people post suggestions, or complain about certain gameplay aspects, they usually just do that. They don't post the why how when howcome, proposed or possible changes, how to implement those and the expected changes those will bring. There is not one thread on this forum I think where an opening post containing the above has gotten anyone responding with a reference to statistics. And why? Because it won't be needed as it's included in the opening post. That is how integrated statistics are with any meaningful discussion ( other than 'fun' which as previously seen is subjective anyway ). When people just post a 'rant', or make a comment which shows a clear lack of the insight required why certain gameplay elements exist, or what their implications are, people will look to statistics ( of the ship's mentioned in the 'rant' and of the person who posted the 'rant' ). I am using 'rant' because the classification can vary, the core is: a post which is aimed at anything related to balance or gameplay elements, but holds just an opinion and a request ( to be friendly, I could use other words here ). When people post those topics, any response which brings up statistics you seem to deem 'toxic'. Like, someone who has 7 battles and comes to forum to complain about kill stealing, no one is allowed to point out he has seven battles as they then are 'trolling'. The fact he has seven battles indicates something, well it indicates several possible things. And all of those are relevant to his 'rant'. And yes, it was a 'rant'. The opening post even said: I can't team kill then or I will be kicked from the battle. I hope you did not miss that detail? But looking him up and seeing he has just seven battles played, is 'toxic' by nature? As I said, I think we should just agree to disagree, and please don't try to turn this around with saying what we bring up is just derailing things.

I am quite sure shooing underwater would not be good for your guns ( the shells would probably explode in the barrel or something ). I guess you learned your lesson, don't help BB's which go somewhere alone and are on the blue line right after the battle starts, they just might try to drown you for your trouble Well I do feel like a bit of an [edited]now, you tried to help someone and all he did for thanks was holding you down Have fun in your battles, and don't be afraid to come to the forums we really don't bite

Lol. Stats not envisioned for balance discussions.... Except devs use stats to balance over 'player opinion'.

rofl Best comment ever if you'd ask me

Let's just agree to disagree I been clear enough and this is turning into a battle of semantics. Just as you keep trying to bait people by continuously trying to mix thing which they said with thing you think they mean.

Mine is to play the ship in PvP and see if you're really the one who should be giving me any advice on how to play her? PvE is not PvP, you can not give advice to people who play PvP if you only played 100 games in PvP overall and none in the ship in question. Maybe to new players, but I am quite visibly not a new player, so your advice is quite badly aimed here.

But is damage the only defining aspect of a ship? I don't think so.

Variable gameplay effects would probably be to much for a large part of the playerbase. I agree with OP that a little more heads up would allow making better tactical use them. edit: also, variable gameplay effects would make tactical planning much harder as you don't know the strength of the effects beforehand.

This is a balance issue thread, you're not supposed to tell people to 'do their homework' and expect it to be an argument. Explain why you think something and try to back that up. That sounds plausible, I can't comment further due to lack of personal experience. As to the underlined part -> VMF cruiser line was not as 'off putting' as the DD line with the turret destruction problem. I gave up on Ognevoi because I lost at least one turret each match. It isn't about 'time on the server' but time and player count / games played count. Better players are more likely to push through underperforming ships to grind till the top anyway.

It has to be established that it is something on their end, and not in between first. But checking some of the people who seem to have issues, we are not limited to a certain geographical area so it's getting more and more likely it is a server side issue and not a internet junction somewhere ( or, it could be really close to WG, one where all our traffic is routed through ).

I have an E25, and I can tell you it is utter rubbish! Well it is if it is your only GE tank destroyer and thus you start with a 50% crew without cammo and sixth sense

If there is a reward I don't think my account would be eligible ;) Why don't you try it for yourself, the tutorial isn't hard and doesn't take long to finish

They don't want a 'superpershing' repeat. Also, just as correction: all those premium ships are strong, but none is 'broken' in the sense that it is an "I win" button. I seen Gremmy's get beaten by Gnevny's and Imperator's ( pretty often even ) by Arkansas's. And no matter how you look at it, not many people would feel ok with buying something which is given lower performance later. Would you buy a car which can go 250km/h, only to be told at a service point that since the law doesn't allow driving faster then 130km/h anyway they have changed the ECU so you can't go faster, and still buy a car from the same company later on? If you mean the AAA buff that was not ship specific was it? Yup. So you regret buying Murmansk because it makes you feel dirty? If the world had more people like you, we would probably have world peace And, the torps have longer range, yes. Except, you still do NOT want to be within effective torpedo range so it makes little difference.

Pff he got it wrong, alcohol is the best remedy for uglyness. To bad it doesn't last Now.. sleep.. really I must

Where have there been bufs which weren't warranted because of ships performing worse then before? Yubari got the new module because it needed a buff due to losing so much AAA power, it wasn't even a big buff and it only rewards those who can actually aim well enough to benefit from less dispersion. Also, how would WG expect to sell more ships if they are found to be underperforming and they wouldn't address that? Sure, that same applies the other way around, but.. but... but... damnit I can't find any valid reason but I still don't want my Gremmy nerved, or my Imperator, or my Blys, or my Murmansk ...

I am not drunk, maybe sleepy ... yes definitely sleepy. Must go to bed, now. edit: the only quote I know which resembles that goes a bit like: you're ugly now and probably tomorrow morning, but I got a bottle of scotch to fix it for tonight

That is 4 points not 3 I would also put 4 a lot higher.. 1. Do damage 2. Take points 3. Kill enemies = win battles

That is a very valid observation.

Francois424, on 31 July 2016 - 01:00 AM, said: BB's got the shaft hard coming from CBT to OBT as well... tho there was only the WarSpite at the moment I believe, which also was made squishier by that transition (still a good premium mind you). BB's in CBT were much 'softer' due to armor model being not fully implemented, and the Warspite was not made squishier by the transition from CBT to OBT. Also, there is nothing wrong with invisi - firing ships, they just require players to know their counters and act on them as a team. Just as Shima didn't need a nerf directly.

Guys, am I missing something? I see there is some hostility but what caused it? Wait don't answer yet, I need to get something first...

Guys... https://eu.warships.today/player/539514663/Wrock0n 7 battles. @Wrock0n K/D ratio is one of the least important 'stats', you're doing fine with 73% win rate ( but your 0.3 kills per game is pretty bad ) Either way, stop focusing on kills and focus on winning. Winning is something you usually need your team for, in whatever shape or form that may be ( meatshields / having to carry you ). But yeah I also sometimes grind my teeth when I have someone who is just about to die and suddenly someone who wasn't even engaging him before fires a salvo right before I'm reloaded. But it happens, and the guy might not just be doing it to get one over on you. Remember, a ship with 1 hp has the same combat effectiveness as a full hp ship, taking them out of the game is the best thing you can do.

I did say earlier that it's a damage dealer but weak in other aspects ( but mainly towards assisting team in spotting ) Still that explains the damage output, not directly the higher win rate, which is imo more because of the limited amount of people who persisted through the line ( and the line teaches you the importance of map control, while torpedo boats don't really care as long as there is space to stay unspotted ). The reason I stopped my grind was that I lost a turret in every battle, and in Ognevoi that is 50% of your firepower. I do know they gave the turrets more module HP but I had not tried it in game myself. I am pretty content with my first venture though so as I said it was a good sign.