G01ngToxicCommand0

But WG has stated earlier that there are no RNG when it comes to penetration and damage...

Before I begin: I usually do not play division and only very seldomly do I play in divsion. I just had one of the typical WoWS battles trying my Yamato for the first time; team lemmings in far east corner and some players die extremely fast in and when trying in chat to rally the team: silence as usual. Post game i check the teams' stats: My team: Average WR: 47,29% Enemy Team: Average WR: 51,73% Number of players w. WR<45%: 6 3 Number of players w. WR>55%: 1 4 Number of players w. 45%<WR<55%: 5 5 When checking the other stats such as damage, XP and K/D for the below 45% WR players they all had stats similar to what bots can be expected to achieve and I can't say whether or not they were bots but one of them had to be a bot with more than 8,8k battles played, WR: 40.92%, damage: 12,6k, XP: 734 and K/D: 0,23 - Why is such a player profile not deleted by Wargaming when it is certain that he is botting every single game he is playing? The above teams are what I have been on and against for the past 2 weeks with a 48% winrate over the last 9 days and I have dropped 0,36% from 55,81%-55,45% in winrate with the worst losing streak of 18 games in a row and today 8 games in a row. Just today: 35% winrate. Statistically with equal teams I should be winning more but I don't because I am put on teams with a majority of either extremely bad players or bots in the majority of my games. It is just not the above battle it is like that it is in almost every battle and there is never any kind of respite where I can relax and play 100% or less, no I have to overperform in every single game just to have a chance of winning now. I don't mind losing 50% of my battles if i know the teams are equally skilled but losing because the matchmaker put me on a team filled with mongs and bots while the enemy team is above average is neither satisfactory nor acceptable for any kind of enjoyment of the game. Also this losing streak is too long for it to be random as I have played so many games over the past two weeks that I should have had at least 50% winrate simply based on the laws of averages. What I want is in my sig and I want it now...

The major problem with the prohibitive tier IX and X costs is that it makes it hard to get good games on those tiers as there very few playing and those who play are too afraid to play meaning that most games are bad experiences.

You can't use your CBT high tier DD experience in the currrent game meta I'm afraid, it has changed completely from IJN torpedoboats being the dominant to the USN and USSR DDs being the dominant DDs. The torpedos on the IJN destroyers have been nerfed so hard that it has gotten hard to hit even bad players and unless you either make suicide rush attacks you rarely hit your torpedos due to the increase in IJN torps' detection range and a decrease in their speed not to mention than the survivability of the tier VIII plus IN DDs has fallen because the torpedos with tha highest probability of hitting the target are also those with the shortest range which brings the player within detection range of radar and onboard fighter plane scouts and in some instance Hydro Acoustic Sonar range as well. The days of the high tier IJN DD torpedo terror ended long ago and this suggestion would totally kill off IJN DDs in the current game meta.

Execpt it doesn't work that way, hitting with torps now is already hard if the targets show basic situational awareness and with the use of fighter planes it is hard to score more than 2-3 torp hits total in high tier games because the high probability of your torpedos being detected early enough for the target to take succesful evasive action and this reality shows on the stats of the various DDs with the gunboats being the most effecient type of destoyer while the japanese torpedoboats are the least effecient. Taking away the only weapon the japanese DDs have has to be compensated with something or else there will be no point in playing those and the are only two ways to do that; a) Increase the probability of the torpedos hitting their target which can only be done by decreasing their detection range and an increase in torpedo speed while also increasing their range and b) turn them into gunboats like the US and USSR DDs.

Trying to get this thread back on topic: My opinion on this is that I would like to see the RN CLs to have longer ranged, 11-12km range, and longer duration radars than any other nation balanced by the fact that they are also the slowest CLs in the game, in this case they will be excellent at keeping enemy destroyers at maximum torpedo range while also be able to spot sneaky CAs with very low detectibility range so that their primary function will be to engage enemy destroyers and cruisers. They are light cruisers remember and as such do not have any combat advantages against anything larger than themselves and it would be naive to believe that a CL should have a fighting chance against a heavy cruiser or battleship in a one on one type engagement. Also as a sidenote but related to this topic is that I think that smoke should work as complete block of line of sight and that it should not be possible to invisifire while hiding in smoke by using other players as spotters, however it should be possible to do so when and only when using a new type of equipment which could be called 'Blind Fire Radar' which would allow for such and only available to USN, DKM and RN as the USSR Destroyers and cruisers do not really need them with their long range high velocity guns, the MK being the exception because it is a premium.

i wouldn't mind limited torpedo loadouts but there is one big problem with introducing it: The limited loadout of torpedos will have to be compensated with a vast increase in the probability of torpedo hits, perhaps by increasing range and decreasing torpedo detection, and the destroyers will all have to be able to work as HE spammers or they will be pointless to play. However if the probability of hitting with torpedos increase so will the whining from the no WASD zero situational awareness BB and CA crowd so by solving one problem you create another.

On the positive the comments and replies in this thread are surprisingly civil - must be the heatwave?

If only it did then I would have had no reason to make the thread

For all the other replies and comments I'll try to elaborate on my points: Slightly off topic: Children do not play at 2am... To clarify; I have no objections or apprehensions of having 50% win chance games all the time if the quality of play is excellent if that makes sense? It is like being in the army: there is a certain minimum standard every soldier has to meet in order to remain in the army so that both his buddies but also his superiors knows what the minimum ability of every soldier is and what can be expected of him. In WOWS there are no standards no minimum requirements no seperation of the players based on what they are capable of or their skills which makes evewry single game chaotic, stressfull and frustrating because you as a player have no idea what the other 11 members of the team can or can not do or even if you can communicate with them and always has to perform for more than just yourself. This in mulitiplayer games lowers the quality of play because of the induced stress, frustration caused by low skill players is much much higher than losing games can ever do. There is no quality of play in losing because your team had more mongs/ultrabad players then that of the enemy's there is quality of play losing against a team of your peers however. Example on bad quality of play: Kraken unleashed and 160k+ damage in Gneisanau and still lose because the rest of the team has 0 skill and understanding on how to play and manage to make 1 kill total before they die in suirush + teamkills - that is not good quality of play. - those are the games you don't want to remember because you only remember the frustration and anger caused by the zombie team that you just happened to be part of. Example on good quality of play: Every member on the team does what is expected from them and after a challenging but equal game with several memorable moments 3 kills and twice the ship's HP in damage in the Warspite the enemy team takes the victory by being the better team of equals - those are the games you want to remember because they had good quality of play. I'll make it perfectly clear: I want to be on teams made up of players of my own ability and skill level and meet teams of similar skill and ability because that removes the need for me to constantly having to play and carry for 2-4 other players that are so bad that they should not be playing and if that mean ending up with a 50% winrate that would be more than acceptable because the quality of play will be so high that defeats have no bearing on the overall game experience. That can only happen if the WoWS playerbase is divided after the players ability and skill level and if that means that sometimes the teams will have to meet other teams of far better or far worse oppenents from time to time that would be fine as long as most games are played against teams of one own's ability and skill level. Bad players are the cause of much of the frustration and toxicity in this game and those can be alleviated by dividing the player base based on their ability and skill level. And yes the community is large enough for it to be possible to implement a skill based matchmaking system and in worst case scenarios the teams can be made 8 vs 8 instead of 12 vs.12 which by the way the maps better supports than the current 12 vs. 12 which are too many ships per map area. Skill based matchmaking; The best way, the only way

Well the ship models are very very nice.

Not if that DD spends all the game doing it while ignoring the 3 cap zones in Domination mode while the enemy DD(s) win the battle by capping all of them which is how most DD players chasing the enemy CV do it.

None of those suggestions will do anything to remove the problem because the problems originate in the very core mechanics of the game. Cruiser survival is low because: a) The accuracy is several fold better than that achieved in real life by always knowing the exact range to the target. b) Muzzle velocity of the shells are artifically made higher by compressing map distances so in the game the projectiles travel about twice as fast if not more than in real life c) Torpedo speed is vastly exaggerated compared to real life values d) damage mechanic are unrealistic and wildly simplistic and do not allow for real world tactics such as damaging or destroying the enemy radar and/or range finders/gunnery directors in order to reduce the enemy's combat effectiveness substantially. e) The detection mechanic shows every player on the team where every detected enemies' location on the game screen and vice versa f) The detection mechanic is not based on real world detection but is based on 'camo rating' just like in World of Tanks. g) There is no horizon to hide behind and to use as a cover for displacing to better positions e) Invisi firing in smoke was not possible unless having blind fire radar which only USA, UK and Germany has during this time period as far as I am aware of. f) Invisi firing against moving targets is not possible at sea unless using over the horizon missiles - when you fire a standard naval gun using cordite/NC gunpowder as propellant at sea it will be spotted - period. In short: The game mechanics makes it impossible to sneak around in ships unnoticed while the enemy has his attention elsewhere and when the player is detected and in range of the enemy his survival will be very limited in time because of the very high probability of hitting and inflicting massive damage. Wargaming have to deal with those core game mechanics if the british CL tree is to be fun to play.

In short: Wargaming have no idea how to make their game work in a way that is not designed around dumbed down game mechanics that frustrates and angers the player base. Want to rid the game of frustration? Make it more realistic.

I think the hull was lengthened in order to increase buoyancy due to the increased weight of the 38cm turrets would set her lower in the water if the hull was not made longer but I am not sure of it though.

It is better to build on a ship's strenghts than thrying to mitigate its weaknesses and from your build you have build a rear line shiper for which the Iowa is simply not suited due to very bad dispersion and low shell velocity meaning that you very seldomly hits targets at long range. Now I wanted to look at your Iowa stats but since you keep them hidden from public view it is not possible to help you because we can't see and interpret the data from your Iowa. My guess is that you are performing poorly in it because you most likely are sitting at the rear trying to snipe at targets above 20km range while hitting almost nothing in which case I would suggest you either change class of ships or your playing style and play the ship at 15-10 km range while using AA guns Modification 2 and Main battery Modification 3 instead as this will increase the Iowa's strengths which is its Anti Aircraft defence and its raw penetration and damage potential of its 16" main battery the latter being inaccurate while also having low shell velocity and since the game meta is bow in you need to increase DPM by increasing its rate of fire, however as you have chosen to hide your stats I can't know if my guess is correct or not. Remember a battleship is meant to be played from the front soaking up damage that other more fragile and vulnerable ships would not survive while dishing out damage and using other players as spotters and meatshields only cause you and your teams to lose - help your team by providing the enemy team with a target they can shoot at while you send massive damage in return so your more vulnerable team members playing in cruisers can inflict damage more or less free from return fire. Use fighter plane instead of spotter plane as you wont hit reliably above 18-20km of range anyway and you can use the fighter as a torpedo early warning instead of Vigilance captain skill. Also get Concealment Expert for your captain as you will need that to sneak in to optimal main battery range.

When giving it a second view I believe you to be right; due to the longer bow section of the Gneisenau the angle of the inclined armoured deck is more shallow than that of the Scharnhorst and is caused by the longer distance to the belt armour from the citadel box meaning as the inclined deck connects at the same height of the belt armour the increased distance from the Gneisenau's citadel to its belt armour gives that ship a smaller slope of its inclined armour. Whether or not it has any real effect in the game is another thing but I cant say that I have been able to tell any difference in game though.

So epic I can't stop laughing

It changed when it launched one year ago with the influx of WOT players who brought with them the camping and 'take no risk' mentality from that game because they were also inept at that game too and lack the ability to understand why a passive gamestyle is neither good for the game experience nor for the winrate.

It is an optical illusion; the pictures are not taken at the same angle.

Had a game on Shatter where I was playing the Scharnhorst and firing AP shots at an enemy Mogami CA sailing broadside to me at about 12-8km ranges at bearing angle at 15-25 degrees and a horisontal impact angle no higher than a maxiumum of 65-75 degrees impact angle and experienced about a handfull of *edit* 'fail to penetrate' on the Mogami's citadel armour belt, yes the armoured belt not the horisontal deck armour as I could observe where the shots impacted, which has a maximum thickness of 140mm and when adding the angle of impact with an estimated vertical angle of about negative 7-8 degrees that should give an effective armour thickness of 150-155mm. However when consulting the Navweaps.com penetration stats for the 28cm SK C/34 APC L/4,4 projectile it says that the penetration ability at those ranges, 8-12km, should lie between 460mm-350mm of penetration it would take impact angles above 18-24 horisontal degrees of impact with a negative vertical impact angle of 8 degrees which makes no sense that some of the APC projectiles *edit*failed to penetrate - they should all have either overpenned, normal penned or made citadel hits. My question is: Does anyone have a reasonable explantion as to why the shots failed to penetrate? The only cause I can think of is that the in game armour penetration ability of the 28cm APC projectile is not as high as in real life but other things might explain it? *Edit* I mistakenly used the term 'bounced' when in fact I meant 'failed to penetrate' as those were the ribbons shown on screen. Source: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-545_skc34.php

XP will remain at the tier they were earned in so XP earned in a tier VI Mutsuki will just be transferred to the tier VI Fubuki which will replace the Mutsuki in the port. WG just can't remove ships and/or XP from the players as they may or may not have spend real money to get those and if they do WG would be commiting fraud or theft and will be viable for criminal prosecution and ban of operation within the EU which WG is not interested in so the players will not experience any loss of any kind.

No worries mate, Wargaming will soon come to the aid of that segment of the playerbase and 're-balance' the maps so that it will be impossible to sit back at the extreme range of the guns spamming HE under the cover of smoke - close range dogfighting like in WoT will be furture of WoWS as well it is just a matter of time

How can it possibly get any worse than it is right now?

They can't the game engine do not support it.