mtm78

Oww your wall of text posts so makes me want to post this image -> Sorry but if you want to dismiss people's opinion based on them not having enough experience in a carrier, we can't take you serious since you haven't played enough ships other than carriers

Which is kinda the point, I was having a bit of a jest I thought you would have gotten it. Off course every purpose built acw vessel is better than a general purpose which can do the same task but far less efficient. Just like a purpose built scout cruiser is better at scouting then a destroyer ( because of biggest radar they could fit on it ).

Fires can even detonate magazine's, historical and all. So no, let's keep fire HP damage. Maybe turn it down though ( a lot ) and make it so that fire does increased module damage ( secondaries, AAA mounts and so on )?

Multi role vessels are always less effective than purpose built vessels

Sorry that post was badly formulated and the edit didn't do it justice. It's just that in a forum if you get 3 people in a row which say they agree then per royal decree the point they are trying to make is universally true and can no longer be argued against, so I had to step in and prevent such an sequence from happening

Nope. You can't practice good torpedo tactics on AI as AI is inherently superbad. It's not uncommon to see people with 90% + wr vs AI, how can you use it to 'train'? You can use co-op to test out a newly unlocked ship, see how it does in situations you'll end up in, but you can not practice tactics against bots.

And there we go, more ad hominem. Everyone who complains about a certain mechanic is having a 'knee jerk' reaction as in 'something killed me it needs nerf!'. Sure some of those threads are like that, maybe even more than a minority, but you can't dismiss them as easily as you're trying to do now. I would like a way to check server averages, they would be useful in these discussions. But even if the average would be ok-ish because some 44% players are pulling them down, it doesn't make a mechanic more broken when the good players using that mechanic are breaking gameplay. \ Yes off course you would say that. But it doesn't mean anything considering your earlier posts. edit: that was too dismissive, it does mean something. It means that in your opinion, his statement is valid. But it doesn't mean anything more.

Ping plotter doesn't work that way, you need to run pingplotter while gaming, and when you have such a desync you should note the time and after the game check with pingplotter. Running pingplotter just to run a trace is a waste of time due to the way 'the internet' works Edit: I'm pretty sure there is a guide for using pingplotter somewhere on the forums, let me look lol.

Have a +1 I was not trying to be a grammar cop but you know just trying to help. My English is full of holes as well, but my spell check seems to correct a lot of it ;)

I got the light fleet package, no pains there they are all 3 enjoyable. I bought the Murmansk, and ow boy I like her. It's a better Omaha imo, with 8km torps which while being affected by the very tight turning radius of other ships are still powerful and can catch unaware captains with their pants down. Will rebuy -> ow yes!

The word you're looking for is 'fair'

I don't like Des Moines that much tbh, it's great for spamming shells but it feels sluggish / big for a cruiser. It's also very fragile but so are most cruisers so that's not the big issue. The issue for is that is good at one thing: shell spamming. At least with the Zao ( currently at Ibuki ) you have a bit more freedom to play as you want. Sure IJN cruisers are typically better snipers, more accurate guns, and more stealthy so being at max spotting distance pays off ( get sixth sense and you will be amazed at how long you can stay undetected ). And IJN cruisers get torps, I once torped a full health montana with two salvo's ( one side ) in a row, then launched my other two set's and while the Montana's buddy in his Iowa did kill me, my torps sunk him. Was one of the most funny moments, typing in chat how torpedoes are to weak and need a buff ( the reaction from enemy team was good, they knew I was trolling a bit so no toxic stuff just laughter and some salt ). PS. You can add me in game if you want, I wouldn't mind playing some Gremmy divisions with you and try to give some pointers or just let you follow my lead ( though idk, not sure I can bear the pressure.. ) I do have slightly more dmg per game in her, but you only had a few games so it's natural. I was getting worse results than you in my first battles with her, totally new play style compared the USN dd line I was grinding.

So why you didn't respond to my reply where I told you the exact same thing, and asked if you think it's fun for other players if the game depends entirely on how good the enemy cv is at sinking ships compared to theirs? No, don't reply to this, reply to the previous post where I asked you since it's much harder to put it out of context then ;)

You lost me there, no damage shouldn't have to be the main currency ffs that's the whole idea.

Two wrongs don't make a right, I can understand though I tried to check his profile but he's not even playing on EU server, wonder why he wants to post here then

Wrong, you always have damage control parties, they put out fires and stop flooding without the need to use your active skill ( which is more like an instant fix then a repair party ) ;) Without using the active ability, it just takes a long time to get the fire under control just as in real life. And btw, no naval battles normally could last days so our 20m matches are highly compressed. Non argument, sadly.

Summation of all your posts on this forum -> I can say the same from the other side ->

Fire is an entirely accurate historical effect from naval combat, why should it be removed? Should they last shorter, perhaps, but removal?

I was feeling blue again Which points out that the reward system isn't advocating team play, right?

Leaving name calling aside.. ... please ... same goes for Userext He does have a point with the secondary armaments of BB's being equal or higher then the primary armaments of cruisers, let alone smaller ships ( dd's ). Also your idea of only being able to shoot where the player is paying attention: nope, the other guns should still auto fire because irl there are gunnery officers for each quadrant so the guns can operate independently ( though only one quadrant would benefit from direct fire control, the other quadrants would have to use manual aiming. You just lost any chance that I will screen you from destroyers or planes in my cruisers, you do get why I hope?

Took the words out of my mouth

The trick of Gremmy play is to try and always dictate engagements. You can even wreck USN dd's if you're prepared and got your guns trained the right way and aren't to close ( as your gun traverse is.. non existent in DD terms at least ). And like he said, the 130mm HE spam is real with this thing, it's pretty much the best DD imo up to the really high tiers. My sims is better at killing DD's but everything else the Gremmy is better at.

Not a history buff I'm afraid so I am not sure