AnuSuaraj

That's exactly my point. Gearing was designed both in the game and in real life to take out bigger ships with torpedoes. But Yamato was designed to take out ships with guns. So Gearing winning a gun duel versus the Yamato (when it has 10 times the surface firepower) is just as ridiculous as Yamato winning a torpedo duel versus the Gearing. As far as the game goes, in a 1v1 engagement on any map the Gearing will now win out against Yamato 10 times out of 10. Gearing can simply out cap the Yamato, or it can kill it with both guns and torpedoes (at the moment) without the Yamato every being able to fight back. Also, the main difference between Gearing engaging the Yamato with torpedoes and guns is currently the fact that while torpedoes can be avoided, assuming the Yamato player has skill, the stealthily fired shells can not. Yamato is too big and slow to dodge Gearing's shells from 10km. So, with the removal of stealth shooting, not only is more skill being added to the game, but also the Yamato will now at least have a chance to win a direct gun fight versus the Gearing if the Gearing is dumb enough to shoot at it when it's guns are pointed directly its way, instead of going for caps or torpedo strikes and only using guns when the Yamato is distracted or its guns are pointed the wrong way. So, now in 1v1 situation, the Yamato will only lose 9/10 times, which is fine with me as Gearing player. This is exactly what I was hoping for. The German DD model was a bit too demanding, whereas the US DD model of invisible spam ships was a bit too easy. This is how it should be. When you fire, people inside your firing range should spot you, those outside of it should not. Excellent. Sorry fella, but you are wrong. You see, Gearing can at any time stop firing its guns, at which point its detectability drops to 5,9 km. It can then circle around the Yamato and open fire again when it has a decent line of retreat. Yama's planes are not that big of a deal. Fighters circle around 4-5km from the ship and only last a minute or so. And spotting plane circles a bit longer and a bit wider but still isn't eternal. Plus I have smoke for when I mess up so... I gave you an in-game example of a single destroyer taking down a massive battleship from medium range by using guns only and without ever getting spotted, shot at, or damaged in anyway, to which you responded with a real life example of a WW2 battle in which a bunch of destroyers rushed at bigger ships, got spotted, shot up and eventually sunk. Also, coincidentally, in that same battle those destroyers used their smoke to smoke up allied ships, not themselves, after which they rushed onward to deploy torpedo strikes and harass the enemy by firing their guns on the move. Seriously, it's almost like you went out of your way to find a real life example of a battle that completely validates all my points of view on how a DD should be played. Thank you.

People who try to act smarter than they are? You mean people who like to say Dunning-Kruger effect a lot as if it will mask their lack of arguments? FYI, Dunning-Kruger effects states that the incompetent do not realize their own incompetence... Looking at my stats, where do you see incompetence? Yeah, I figured as much...

Sorry to burst yours, but in that Battle of Samar that people like to mention (and which I knew about long before this game came out) really a lot, the Johnston got sunk...by secondary hits. And so were two other destroyers, while Yamato left undamaged. So Yamato could spot and shoot at those DDs from 10 km away, the fact that it did so piss poorly only proves that its captain was a noob. So, in a way, Gearing's win against Yama is, in fact, total BS, since Gearing spamming shells from 10 kilometers without ever popping smoke or taking a single point of damage is surely not what would happen in the real life version of the duel. Also, when you take the in game consideration about how Gearing also has probably the best torps on tier 10, and can simply defeat Yamato by out capping it, I think the gun duel should go to Yamato. Or would you prefer that the biggest battleship ever built was simply everyone's punching bag on tier 10?

Oh my freaking lord... not you again. The slow guy that pads in Yubari and tries to circle all of his battles at the neat numerical value of five. You know, we had a epic dweeb like that in planes, and I'm starting to believe that you are actually his alt. I will never play Russian gunboats or RN CLs?! Dear god, that is shocking news to me, especially since I've started my grind of Russian gunboats and British CLs FREAKING AGES AGO. My stats are not hidden, you know. You can open them and see that I've played Clemson, Izislav, Farragut, Mahan, Fletcher, Gearing. You can see that I've recently started to grind Leander, and Ognevoi. And that I have a million games in Leningrad. Use eyes before throwing out half-a*sed conclusions is what I'm saying. So me saying that I use guns for DD dueling mostly is the same as me saying that I've never once shoot anyone from smoke? I also said I like to fight for the caps in that out-of-context quote. Do you think I do that stealthily and with torpedoes too? Have you ever even capped anything at tier 10? Or is your Yubari keeping you too busy to play on tier 10? My division mates, who by the way tease me for always hogging smoke for myself, will be shocked by this news. I play my DDs the way that the situation demands it. But yes, since torpedoes usually do the most damage, I like the employ them as often as possible. If I had nukes, I would use those more often than torpedoes. Is this the part where you teach me how to play Shima as a gunboat too? Have you ever even seen a Shimakaze, since you don't have a single battle above tier 8?

Shows how much you know about the game that you're actually playing...or how badly you employ sarcasm. You see, the winner of a 1v1 gun duel between Gearing and Yamato is actually Gearing. Every...single...time. Not 5 times out of 10, or 8 times out of 10, but 10 times out of 10. Assuming players of both ships at least have half a brain, the Gearing will kill the Yamato every single time without taking a single point of damage himself. You see, a fully specced out Gearing has a shooting detectability radius of 9,7 km and a maximum gun range of 13,3 km which means that it has a buffer of 3,6 km in which it can shoot anything without getting spotted. So, in 1v1 gun duel vs. the Yamato, the Gearing can actually keep Yamato within that buffer with its superior speed and agility for as long as it wants to. The Yamato can not out run it. It can not pursue it. It can not dodge shells fired from 10 km. Yamato has NO EFFECTIVE COUNTER to a stealth shooting Gearing other than running to allies. There is very little skill involved on the side of the Gearing. He just has to be careful not to get within 9,7 km of the Yamato, and that's about it. And yes, that would take a long time. But remember, I said this is a 1v1 bout on Ocean map with no time constraints. Gearing does 1-3k per salvo with HE, 2-5k per salvo with AP, and with a few unavoidable fires, the Yamato dies every single time without doing any damage to the Gearing, AND WITHOUT EVEN SPOTTING IT ONCE. So, in this game, which is suppose to at least loosely mimic naval warfare, you can, with one small destroyer that has only six medium caliber guns, spam hundreds upon hundreds of shells upon the biggest battleship ever made by man and get away without a scratch. With just six five inch guns on one destroyer you can slowly burn to a crisp this behemoth of a ship that was specifically designed to obliterate smaller surface vessels FROM LONG RANGE with its superior firepower consisting of nine 46 cm guns, twelve 15,5 cm guns, and twelve 127 mm guns, and all from a distance of less than 10 km, without the Yamato ever being able to fire a shell back in anger. Now, in the actual game you will rarely be in a situation where it is just you and one Battleship and nothing in between. But I actually was in similar situations in battles where my Gearing could safely lob hundreds of shells at things that couldn't even see me or fight back in any way. And, while I think that it's okay for Gearing to be able to control the engagement with the Yamato, to out cap it, or to torpedo it to oblivion, or to torpedo it a little bit and then finish it off with guns, I really can not describe with words how ridiculous it is for me to be able to completely defeat a Yamato (with a decent player in it) by just using my guns, and never once feeling endangered in the slightest. So to sum up, and to answer my own question. Why is stealth shooting being removed from the game? 1. Because it is a mechanic with a low skill requirement 2. Because it has little to no counters to it 3. Because it looks, feels, and is FREAKING RETARDED... Seeing a Yamato or any other massive battleship limping away impotent from some invisible DD spamming 4-6 tiny shells at it every few seconds breaks immersion. And that's why stealth shooting is getting removed. Because, game or no game, if we're talking naval warfare, in a gun duel between a Yamato and a Gearing, the Yamato should win at least 9 out of 10 times. And that's also why smoke shooting will eventually either be reworked or completely nullified with counters. Because, just like stealth shooting, smoke shooting is a mechanic that has a low skill requirement, has little to no counters to it, and it looks, feels, and is retarded. The end.

Yeah, you just keep illogically basing your whole premise on me being someone who "never smoke shoots" and "wants people to use torpedoes only". Because that's how I played my gunboat US DDs on release, and that's how I still play my Fletcher, Gearing and Leningrad today. And that's also how I play my CLs and BBs, as torpedo-boats, because secretly I want the game to adapt to my needs. Oh wait, no. That's just a big pile of BS. But maybe you missed the last couple of posts. We've actually moved on to: Why is stealth shooting being removed? And who would win a gun duel between Gearing and Yamato.

Predictable answer. But I like it. The pandering to BBabies theory. Can I have a sub-question though? Let's say there's a gun duel between a Gearing and a Yamato about to happen somewhere. Who wins? I'm talking about a strict gun duel here, meaning Gearing cannot use its torpedoes at all. Let's say the map is Ocean, both players are of equal skill level, and no capping is allowed. So it's a strict deathmatch with guns only. Who wins?

I love it when dweebs effected by Dunning-Kruger actually use the phrase Dunning-Kruger in a sentence. That's just...oh so sweet. I have an unrelated question to pose to all you geniuses here. It is simple question and a one that you can answer in your own words (seriously, you don't even have to use the English language). Ready? Here it comes: Why is stealth shooting being removed?

Fascinating. Apparently, anyone who thinks that the way smoke works in this game is counter intuitive, low skill, and could use a rework is automatically wrong. Or so say some totally unbiased people who just happen to own Gremys, Kutuzovs, and Belfasts. Even a DD player, Alpha Tester with over 4k battles in all 3 branches of DDs who has played both gunboats (I grinded US DDs back when they're were still gunboats with useless torpedoes, and yes, I still have nightmares from playing the old Mahan) and torpedo boats (once again, I find such classification revolting, since I believe that DDs are largely situational in terms of what armament they use at what time) can only be completely wrong. This is of course, not explained with viable counter arguments to my idea of smoke dispersing when guns are fired inside the bubble. No, we don't want that. We don't want smoke that encourages teamplay, smoke that can be flanked, or countered with spotting planes. No, we don't want that. That's not even the problem . The problem is clearly in those big bad BBs overpopulating everything. We want smoke that you can relax in. Smoke that can, instead of tactics and skill, only be countered by one click consumables. And that, of course, only works if the ship in smoke doesn't have some one click consumables of his own. That would be a fun game. Pick a proper consumable at the proper time, and just forget about that whole aiming , shooting , maneuvering ship game. Yes, we want smoke from which one can casually fire from with no fear of retaliation. We'll just sit in smoke with sonar active and spam shells with leech cruiser of choice from 15k, because that's some high skill stuff right there. And how is that any less skilled than torpedoing stuff? I mean, with torpedoes you just click on that lead aim thing and it's a done deal. It's not like you have to maneuver up close with accelerated torpedoes , dancing around planes, radar cruisers, and RPF specced DDs and than merely use the lead aim as some general idea of predicting where the enemy ship might be in 8- 15 seconds later. And where's the skill in smoking up friendlies just below the cap and then moving in to spot for the team while dueling enemy DDs on the cap and dodging cruiser salvos. That crap is easy. Smoke shooting is hard. Clearly, anyone with a brain can see that smoke as it works today is not a major hindrance to the game. I actually agree with you guys. There's no way that a cruiser that was designed to leech from smoke behind his team with radar and sonar combo for self defense is in anyway static or campy. Only BBs can be static and campy. It's in their genetic code. BB = useless camper, while smoked up cruiser behind team = high skilled player. So I was clearly mistaken and biased because I want to play the game a certain way. I clearly want the game to be skill based. And that's just stupid of me.

It's not a smoke nerf, it is an alteration of smoke that would make it more useful overall. Shooting at BBs from smoke with cloaked up CL or DD is something that probably has the lowest skill requirement in the game, so it is no surprise to me that some people like it.

Assuming there are only 2 CAs on the team and 5 BBs, there are also 5 DDs per side. Whether a BB is static or not depends on the player. Some camp, some rush, some do both. On the other hand, a Belfast or a Fiji player HAS to be static. That's a big difference. FYI, I don't care how many BBs, CAs or DDs there are. MM has rarely done something absurd or unplayable in that regard. There is a need for this. You keep whining about BB overpopulation (5 BBs per side is too much according to what you think) which is at least regulated by the Matchmaker unlike the amount of smoke CAs... For example, a division of 3xBelfast can feasibly be matched against 3xYorck...which would make the battle broken, or, worse yet, the Belfasts could be pitted against 3xFiji which would make the battle incredibly frustrating and static for the other eighteen players. Also the idea that BB overpopulation is making the game too static, and is the ONLY THING that could possibly make the game static is an extremely narrow minded view. The idea behind not being able to shoot from smoke is to force DDs to smoke up allies and then to spot for them rather than to smoke themselves up and do mediocre damage. It would promote team tactics rather than solo leeching.

Once again, you are unable to distinguish between the game meta and the balancing of ships, neither of which are fixed values. Those DDs can be rebalanced a million different ways. They can get heal, and viable torpedoes, and whatever. And also, I'm not arguing for the removal of smoke, or of shooting from behind smoke. Please learn to distinguish between the game meta/ tactics employed and game balance. Funny, my point was exactly that... Smoke shooting is less effective than other tactics. Thank you for confirming it. Again, the suit my play style theory? It's absurd. If anything has been the mainstay of my game style, it has been getting easy kills on smoke shooters, in and outside of the cap. So I'm kind of shooting myself in the foot with this proposal. While I am not denying the problem of BB overpopulation, you do have to realize that this problem that has no direct influence on the meta because of this little thing called the Matchmaker that will always try to form a balanced game with all the classes represented. Also, overpopulation of BBs has no correlation to the smoke shooting meta which we are ACTUALLY discussing here.

Again, this topic discusses the validity of the smoke meta, not BB overpopulation. WG has said that they need to so something about it, and I agree. BBs are currently too easy to play and their stronk ship appeal is what draws in the players. But that has nothing to do with the smoke meta. And WG has not said that any potential surplus of BBs imbalances battles, and as far as I can see the MM is working properly. I would have written up a ticket if it wasn't. And again, no real argument as to the many benefits of the smoke shooting mechanic? Admit to yourself that deep down you know that smoke shooting is doing nothing to better the game, and might be in fact, holding it back. Is the smoke shooting mechanic any fun? Does it make for a more static or a more dynamic game play? How much skill is there involved, and ultimately, could DDs serve their role better if they could not shoot from inside smoke?

Kutuzov is actually well balanced, the actual problem with it lies in the unskilled smoke shooting mechanic...

I did make a false claim without realizing it. Your screenshot does prove that. But the reason why I believed that BBs were hardcapped because I've never had a game in which the classes were balanced so improperly. Now you be honest to yourself (I doubt that you can) and admit that the occurrence of imbalanced battles such as the one you screenshotted (in favor of BBs) are an utter rarity. And that they can happen in favor of the other two classes as well. Play 10 battles and tell me if the MM is doing a good job or not? It is doing a great job, if you ask me. It balances the classes and tiers almost perfectly, and only an occasional mis-tiered division has been known to screw it up. So, beside me making a false claim (unintentionally, and certainly not to propagate my argument) my argument still stands. The alleged BB overpopulation would only matter if the MM was at fault and if it was regularly allowing battleships to infest battles in a larger numbers. IT DOESN'T. The Matchmaker actually regularly balances all the three classes plus carriers, and it does it rather well. I know that because I play the game regularly and for every screenshot that you provide of a class imbalanced game, I can provide a hundred screenshots of reasonably well balanced match ups. But like I said, that would be pointless. And also, I'd just like to mention that there's nothing backing the claim that an excess of battleships in a battle would make for a campier battle. I see bad cruiser and DD players circling the edges of the map just as often as I see island humping BBs. And to me smoke shooting is way more static than island humping or even long range sniping. Either way, whether the game is campy or not is actually determined by the Meta which is what I had tried to discuss here. It is also what the original poster had tried to discuss here. The OP of the thread came up with a cyclone like draw distance for anyone sitting in smoke, and the first replies he got was from people who clearly missed the point telling him how "You don't spot from smoke. Others spot for you..." He already understands that Edited, and is actually saying that while others are spotting for you and you're sitting in the middle of the smoke that your draw distance, or rather view distance to enemy ships should be reduced regardless(just like in a cyclone). But as usual, the braindead Forum masses come in with their nuanced replies to a topic that they don't even understand. And then, of course, fanboys of mechanic X and ship Z that uses mechanic X came in to defend their stationary game style while accusing others of doing the same. It's kind of precious. And four Forum pages later people still don't get it. We're not discussing game balance here. We're discussing how smoke shooting should be altered, and whether it should be altered, to make for a better game. My argument was that smoke shooting requires little skill, makes for static game play, and is hardly fun for anyone, and that altering it might improve the overall game play. The only counter arguments were in forms of unrelated nonsense such as BB overpopulation, and "why do you want to make RN CLs crap?" That's not even a counter argument, that's just proof that some people lack the intelligence to even grasp what is being discussed here. Let me spell it out for you ONE LAST TIME... Is the smoke shooting mechanic any fun? Does it make for a more static or a more dynamic game play? How much skill is there involved, and ultimately, could DDs serve their role better if they could not shoot from inside smoke? When you can answer those questions without thinking about your ship X in which you like to smoke shoot a lot, then maybe you can suspend with the irony of accusing others of being biased... This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate word.

I have no intention of flooding the Forums with a thousand screenshots of the MM working properly just to put your one freak game into perspective. I was a bit surprised by that screenshot, since I can honestly say that I've never had a battle like that...like ever. Behind smoke is not the same as inside smoke, as behind smoke you have to keep track of you flanks and you have to keep moving to keep the smoke in between you and potential spotters. One mechanic is campy, the other is not. Also, not being able to shoot from smoke encourages DDs to smoke up allies and spot for them. And here's the part that you and some other people don't get, and that's the fact that we're not talking about nerfs or balance here. We're talking about the META i.e. the fundamental basis of the game. So the question is not how my proposed change to the smoke mechanic would effect ships X,Y and Z, but rather does the removal of the ability to shoot from smoke make the game less static and more dynamic. If the answer is no, and there are proper arguments to that effect (still haven't heard a single one), then the smoke should stay as is. But if, on the other hand, the answer is: Yes, the game is better, more skill oriented, less campy, and more dynamic this way, then the change should be made regardless of ship X, Y and Z that can be rebalanced a million times over (and probably will be anyway). That's the part that is not getting through to you people. You can't just divert a question about a faulty tactical mechanic by simply citing that "Ship Z will not work well if that mechanic is removed." That's not what we're debating here. What if I had posed this same question a year ago when there weren't any VMF DDs or RN CLs in the game? What would your nonsensical counter argument be then? I would say smoke shooting is skill-less and campy, and you would say: "A few months from now, some poorly conceived ships will be implemented and they will depend greatly on this one mechanic." Or would you simply cite me the DD gunships of that time? Those wonderful US DDs like the Farragut, Mahan and Benson which have since then been buffed and given viable torpedoes... You don't base the fundamental mechanics of an entire game on a few slivers of easily modifiable content. You find the mechanics that are the most fun and you mold the content to fit inside it. That's why stealth shooting is getting removed. Because it takes zero skill and isn't fun for neither the bored shooter nor the frustrated recipient. So first understand what we're talking about here, and then come back to me.

And again, not a single logical argument as to why shooting from behind smoke rather than inside it would be a detriment to the game. Just more evidence of how the usage of gifs is closely related to one's intelligence, or lack thereof. So, one last time: It is my opinion that the current smoke meta is a proven detriment. Nobody likes it, not even DD players like me, because it is skill-less and static. Shooting from inside smoke is a static activity because smoke is STATIC. And it is skill-less because, well, let's face it, you're sitting on your behind and spamming HE shells all over creation. That's about as challenging as eating chips. And it is campy because you are unseen the whole time. Your only concern are torpedo combs which are easily countered by either sonar or using allies as meatshields. This is the very definition of camping since you can only shoot at things while they stay in your range, and most ships, when engaged by smoke shooters, will try to exit their range. This leads to more static, campy, and boring gameplay. I am not biased because I like my DDs to have both viable guns and torpedoes. Like I've said, I've had plenty of battles by now in which my DDs did more damage with guns than torpedoes. So I've also exploited this mechanic at times, and I know that it can be effective, but it still does nothing overall to improve the game. In fact, it is now even being used to mask balancing issues. Things that do not have a dynamic skill element to them should get kicked out of the game. End of story. The MM will always strive to make a balanced team in which all the ship classes are equally represented. That's why in 90% of your battles you will get a well balanced assortment of ships. The other 10% is when you're playing at three in the morning and there aren't that many players in the queue. During those rare occasions when it's slim pickings for the MM, you might experience some odd match ups. It's still very rare though. I can honestly say that in my last thousand battles, not counting a few fultard divisions that have baffled the MM a bit, I have not found myself in a single unbalanced battle. My last couple hundred battles was regularly 3 to 5 BBs, 3 to 5 CLs, 2 to 5 DDs, and 0 to 2 CVs. So MM is not the problem. BBs are not the problem (not counting a few items, like Bismarck's secondaries and the counter-intuitive healing while under fire) and singling them out as the crux of the issue is misleading. The smoke meta is currently the biggest problem of the game. Why do you think that WG had implemented so many hard counters to it over the last year by handing out Radars and Sonars like it's Christmas. At one point, they will realize that smoke itself has to be reworked. It is inevitable. So, for the sake of two lines of ships, most of which are currently imbalanced according to their global stats, we should never make any sweeping changes that might improve the game? WG just said that they're removing stealth shooting which, I believe effects Akizuki quite a lot. And those VMF gunships used to be able to stealth shoot too. So I guess Wargaming cares more about the game as a whole than just about a line or two of easily modifiable vehicles. Firing from inside smoke is skill-less because you are shielded from detection on all sides, whereas when you're shooting from behind smoke or islands, you also have to worry about counters in from of ships on your flanks that might spot you, at which point you get shot back. So there is a skill element to ambushing or damaging ships from behind islands or behind smoke. There is zero skill in doing damage from inside smoke. I never said you couldn't pop you smoke and stay in it. What I said is that you shouldn't be able to pop your smoke, stay in it, and then shoot from it. I have the premium variant of Minsk. It's called Leningrad. You can shoot on the move with it, and from behind smoke, and from behind islands, and you can duel DDs with it, and AP broadsiding cruisers...and my Minsk even has viable torpedoes. Maybe ask yourself why yours doesn't? Maybe if the ability to shoot from smoke was removed, then you too could have a DD that can both shoot and torp? Oh, so I died a lot while trying to upgrade my stock Leander? That totally proves your point.

And that would be maybe because...I dunno...most players don't actually spend money on the game and can therefore only play regular ships? It's kind of the definition of pay 2 win...

And the worst part is how cheeky they are about the whole thing. When the Leningrad was released, they also released a video in which the explained how Leningrad is practically better in everything than the current regular tier 7, which was the Kiev back then.

Premium ship whine? It's not a whine, there is at least one broken premium ship on each tier. Wargaming either makes them too powerful or gives them too much utility. You have Nikolai on tier 4, Kamikaze and Fujin are old Minekazes on tier 5 which means that they are utterly broken, and yeah, the worst tier of all is 7. Leningrad is better than Minsk in every way, Belfast has way too much utility, making it a low skill, high reward ship etc.. I could go on for about ten hours straight but I rather not. It is a known fact that Wargaming makes most of its cash on Premium ships and on gold to XP conversion, and that is why every new line is power creeped a bit and why Shiratsuyu is currently slightly overpowered. Shiratsuyu will be rebalanced. It was already announced. But the premiums will stay as is. And therein lies the hypocrisy. The sad part is the fact that if Wargaming keeps this policy up, we're just going to keep getting more and more overpowered pay2winnium ships on each tier until regular ships become unplayable.

I am actually 100% sure that I'm not biased. Just like I am 100% percent sure that a game mechanic which influences game play negatively across the board should not be sheltered for the sake of just one DD line which could easily be reworked, especially so since sitting in smoke is not how you're suppose to play that line in the first place. I know that because I've seen good players play those ships, some of which are my regular division mates. I originally only came into this thread because it was a plea to change the way that smoke works, and, since I do personally dislike how one particular part of the smoke mechanic works, i.e. the ability to fire from within the smoke bubble, I figured that I'd just weigh in a bit and offer up my opinion as to how I believe the smoke screen ability should be reworked. So, I offered up my argument that keeping smoke as is while only removing the ability to fire from within the smoke bubble would perhaps be the best solution, forcing DD players to think more intently about how they want to spread out their smoke so that both them and their allies could use it to both lob shells at the enemy FROM BEHIND THE SMOKE SCREEN as god intended and also to close range more stealthily. My argument was then countered with the non-argument of "BB overpopulation" by one Forumite who apparently likes to get torpedoed in smoke a lot ( that is when he's not busy padding in the Nikolai), while another Forumite ( a player with less than 1k battles overall and hardly any ship over tier 6 just for the record) rolled in parroting his favorite catch phrase of "straw man" that I've already seen him use about 8 million times in the Forums and claiming that "DD survivability" (the most important stat in the game by the way) would suffer greatly if my suggestion was ever implemented. So, I first tried to politely explain to Forumite A how BBs are actually hard capped by the MM system to five per battle tops, and how in most battles you only get 3-4 BBs anyhow, and that, by the mythical ways of logical deduction, we can conclude how BB overpopulation has very little influence on the meta, to which he then retorted with, not another argument, but rather, a personal preference of how he would like to have only 3 battleships per battle. At that point I started to ignore Forumite A, as any sane person would. Although, I will now state for the record, just in case someone from WG is watching, that my personal preference as a DD player is actually 11 BBs per side in every battle. That way, after I kill the one DD on the enemy team, I can use my BB minions as spotters while I sit behind them in smoke spamming endless streams of HE at those helpless dweebs. Just imagine that glorious sight. As for Forumite B, I tried to explain to him how "survivability" rate on DDs will naturally be lower since DDs are expected to move ahead of the pack and to continually risk their neck for those tighter and higher damage torpedo salvoes. And yet somehow, he understood that as me saying that DDs should have a lesser influence on the battle than BBs do. So I guess it's pointless to debate this any further with him as well. And, while you, let's call you Forumite C since I probably won't be able to remember your name, actually seem like an intelligent chap (at least when compared to Forumites A and B), I think it is now time for me to retire from this debate, that isn't actually a debate but more of a exercise in frustration. But there's just one more thing that you should all take from this... And that is the fact that while I do believe that smoke screens as they currently work are a bit unadjusted, I will not curl up into a ball under my bed if Wargaming decides not to rework it in the long run. I will, instead simply continue to do what I do best, and that is to annihilate clueless DDs in smoke and to buff my survivability by doing the one thing that buffs it the most: Winning. Oh yes, I will be winning. And while some people will be sitting idly in their smoke, and sending out an occasional 1k salvo on a BB 13km away, I will be taking them caps, killing them enemy DDs, and buffing my survivability stat really a lot. Apparently, when you win a lot, you survive a lot more than when you lose and since I'm one of those people who doesn't think that smoke shooting is a necessary modus operandi for a DD, my survivability stat is going to be like... really sick. P.S. I actually checked my super important Survivability on some of my DDs and it's well over 50% on most of my ships which is 10-15% above the server average, so I guess the link between smoke shooting and survivability has now been officially disproven.

No comments on your stats. Nikolai and I suppose you like to sit in smoke when in you Gremy? Gruber told me he'd torped you once in smoke so... Also, what part of stop talking to me did you fail to grasp? 1. And how does the ability to not be able to fire from smoke reduce DD survivability? If we were to remove smoke entirely, than yes, that would reduce DD survivability, but removing just the option to fire from smoke should not influence survivability that much. It would reduce damage output or more specifically damage leeched while being useless as a DD. 2. Why does survivability matter on a DD that much? It's a high risk, high reward class. It doesn't matter if you're dueling with other DDs or going really REALLY close for that perfect torpedo spread. You're always risking more than a BB. You are a frontline ship with the lowest armor and HP values in the game, so why does low survivability surprise you so much? And more importantly, why do you think it matters? I neither play torpedo boats nor gunboats. I play DDs which are suppose to be both, depending on the situation. And yes, I do think that the VMF line with the mostly short range torps is kind of poorly conceived. Wargaming obviously agrees since with the line split they gave some of the higher tier stuff gunboats viable torps, and the new line has torpedoes that are even more than viable. I'm not biased and like I said, I really do use both guns and torpedoes, but it is undeniable that torpedoes kill faster. And they also make BBs use their Damage Con which makes them vulnerable to both your and friendly fire in the long run. Also, BBs cannot heal away torp damage like they can fire damage. You will never get positive results if you're concentrated on just one armament. On DDs you have to use both guns and torpedoes to get higher damage outputs and turn the game in your favor. Also, I just want to note that for me, personally, doing 10k damage on an enemy DD is worth more than doing 20-30k on a battleship.

And you're saying what exactly? DDs are too weak? They're not. Have I missed something here? I did not propose to get rid of smoke but merely to make it a defensive consumable only, one which conceals ships as long as they don't fire their guns within the bubble. You can still smoke up and fire FROM behind the smoke if you really like to do so, but preferably while moving. Do you people really do that much damage in DDs by smoke shooting that it would cripple your game style that much? If that's the case, I don't think you're playing DDs properly, which is also partly the fault of the current meta. BBs are easily sunk, with torpedoes and maybe fires, but HE spamming them from smoke with a DD is a waste of time in most situations. Again, my biggest grief with smoke shooting is the lack of skill in the entire process. WG will remove it in time, either directly or by introducing so many hard counters to it as to make it impossible. You are not stubborn. You are one of those clique types. There's one for every class. If someone comes along to propose changes to your class, for whatever reason, you'll just lash out even if his arguments are sound. I don't like the OP's proposal but at least he is aware of the issue. And I do dislike the reactions of the people in this thread. You, my friend, are just one of those people who thinks that he can somehow "protect" the class of ships that he plays. You can't. Because it is a video game designed to attract all types of players. And I think I've already told you to stop commenting on my posts, I have no interest in debating anything else with you.

Gunboats! Gunboats! Gunboats everywhere! There is one line of Gunboats people! One! And it was recently altered, because, apparently, the gunboat concept isn't so hot. Apparently, a small DD that gets penned by HE and has only four to six small caliber guns doesn't do so well against cruisers and BBs in a gunfight. Who knew?! I have the Leningrad which is both a gunboat and torpedo boat. And no, you are not suppose to play those leeching in smoke and HE spamming at random BBs from 13km. You are suppose to shot on the move, while dodging and spotted, at distracted targets. And yes, you are suppose to fight enemy DDs. They might out spot you but they cannot out run you. It doesn't matter if you're in a DD or CL or BB. You always shoot the DDs first if you can. That's how you win battles. As for BBs getting radars and sonars - that's all because of thee Edited smoke shooting mechanic. DDs are not suppose to be able to gun BBs down from full HP, yet in this game it is possible. It takes forever, but just the fact that it is possible proves that DDs actually have more engagement options than any other class. The loss of the smoke shooting ability could be easily mitigated with a few select buffs. I was done with debating you, not the rest of the class. Because it is pointless. Because you are not open minded. This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate word

Learn to read people. What I actually said was that the GAME in general is suffering from smoke shooting. And I didn't say nerf smoke, I just said change one nonsensical, counter intuitive and campy characteristic of that same smoke to make the game more dynamic and interesting. No comment on that MMA BS though. I have no idea what the absent minded poet was trying to say there. Are you saying that DDs should be able to gun down BBs more easily? Because they can do that already.