nerderklaus

Did the larger guns on Conqueror get lower sigma? Usually high tier BBs with 12 guns get 1.8 sigma except for certain ships they are biased for and BBs with less guns get improved sigma to compensate for the reduced hit probability except for ships they are biased against, f.e. Iowa getting buffs despite of already being superior to FdG and Izumo. There isn't really a reason to use the bigger guns, because the tiny advantages simply get lost against the extra-guns with the other option... Well, I think the true reason for you not seing the bigger guns still is that 90%+ of T10 players are too stupid to change the guns to test the other ones.

Well, lets just go through various gameplay issues with the game and how the CV rework. When being uptiered the AA works automatically. There already is far too much powercreep with some examples being T5 vs T7 or in case of most involved ships even worse T8 vs T10. It's a big problem that WOWS enables such a typical noob resumee which is like die up to one tier 10 ship (usually Shima, Yama, Monty) and play it all the time. With battleships and cruisers they at least need to do a couple of things, but a retarded typical Monty player will just shred the T8 CV planes without even doing something to get them shredded. The attack planes will probably get a good drop onto him but DBs and TBs will do far less. This is more about such issues, not like a AA cruisers with an AA setup which obviously should be effective against higher, same and lower tier CV. No problems solved here, the gamebreaking effect of battletier luck got potencially increased. Farming dailies on T8 and T9 comes down to getting battles without the baboons in the big ships and I still see no efforts to get rid of such gamebreaking issues for any class. Make T10 CV less common by making T8 CV a nightmare to play? Such issues get increased further with the changes that took away a CVs air to air potencial. In the past T8 CVs could at least fight each others planes when every ship was in some mega-AA-bubble. Now? Well... The concentration of the worst players in the game at T10 combined with this powercreep ruins many matchs for T8 and T9 ships BTW. The 7 reports usually aren't even enough for 3 T10 battles, f.e. 3 Shimas with T10 as most played tier that still don't know about radar, the AFK CV and 3 BBs that maintain their maximum range to the enemy. Skillgap is another one which works on all the cognitive dissonances of certain people, in particular the ones who only played the strongest stages of new CV and only the best ones, but acted like "skill, skill, skill" after preparing intensively on the test server. Every healthy person will understand that people had practice with old RTS CV drops and given time they will get their practice with the new drop mechanics as well. Some people might make some odd assumptions about skillgap and such, but in reality controlling 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 units at once should be obviously more difficult than flying one squadron, giving the ship some waypoints and using a consumable from time to time. The problem that still is ignored would be people who liked the old CV most like they were with the RTS gameplay. No problems solved, but some potencially increased while others certainly were created. Some ADHS person might be like "yeah, no free stuff", but no comment on these. The other thing would be that some people obviously will not realize that they don't take more damage by CV on average, because of stronger CVs. The biggest factor in this obviously is more CVs being around now. It's no so difficult to look up an effective build and if you wanna try something you can easily change it, if it doesn't work. The effects of AA builds got reduced meaning the rewards in that area for making sacrifices somewhere else got reduced. This is particulary bad, because who usually has low level captains or misskilled captains? Whiteline BBs that should have that misplay punished much, much harder. This increases issues with the class system not working as supposed to be, the customization system not working as it's supposed to be and general skillgap issues. Destroyers who want to have a good game WHILE DOING THEIR JOB instead of leeching have such a hard time, but there literally are dedicated efforts to give certain other people free points, in particular the BB line that gets "balanced" to compensate for it's users. AP bombs are particulary strange. They seem to have the same accuracy as HE bombs, but the properties of them seem to be like before. They had higher accuracy before for a reason. On T10 ships more bombs sorta neglect the issues, but what about the others? The attempts to help DDs out might have been already, but everything else was simply about making BBs more foolproof against CV. The other big thing would be that HE bombs at least maintaining potencial to cause a DoT. Now AP bombs are like less damage per drop (except for T10 as usual), less accuracy, AP limitations against lighter ships, if you manage to perfectly align a full aimed drop again some lighter ship. The compensation for AP bomb disadvantages is gone and generally all DBs except for Midway and Haku vs BBs seem to stink. Things like TBs with two low-damage torps per strike on strikes that are more difficult to aim than the old ones should be an obvious issue as well. Whiteline BBs... In the past MN, RM, USN should have been punished much harder by CV. If any BBs would have needed good AA it would have been the brawlers. Well, now it seems like it's simply less relavant to pick the right BB for camping. In The past a T8 CV had major impacts on his damage based on whether there was a lonely GKUR/Yama or not. These two ships got for whiteline camping what they deserved, but many other BBs didn't. I did not notice any efforts to get this right. This paragrapth will really trigger the DGEs of certain people. Montys and Conquerors should suffer on misplays like GKURs and Yamas. What should have been better? Things like perfectly aligning a DB drops, in particular against manouverable, small ships should get rewarded more. Attack planes should be less cookie cutter and instead have some edge. More air-to-air options should have been maintained. It should be noticable whether you invest a lot of skillpoints and module slots into AA or not like RNG noob bonus is breaking for creating the possibility that one player gets consistently smaller spreads without accuracy upgrades than another player gets on the same ship with all accuracy upgrades and shorter fighting ranges. There generally is too much impact of battletier luck that needs changes, but it's most broken with CV and AA that works without player control. It would have been better for the game, if the time spend on that rework instead was used on the tier-by-tier powercreep. Stop rewarding people for dying up to a T10 or converting it. There are so many profiles like a player with almost everything red and orange, but suddenly all-green Monty stats... Last but no least: Come up with something that forces the player to work against planes himself instead of fully automatic AA and O+click for a sector from time to time. The tunnelvisioned Monty on the white line who certainly will not be able to react like this should suffer the consequences. Obligational note for the usual special suspects of all colours: If CV can fight other CV more effectively again, the lost planes obviously must get compensated with more effective strikes PS: Forgot to wrote that Kaga and Saipan can now get dragged into T10 battles and all BS coming with them PS2: What needs to be brought up as well is that with just premium account a T10 CV can lose money while being the topscorer of his team. A T10 BB just needs two lucky salvos to make money.

It's not just firepower. It's flight time as well, if you wanna kill the other CV first. More or less it seems like they want all CV to be weaker than before and maintain or increase the tier-by-tier powercreep. Well, other ships are more dangerous by various means so, yeah. Still the most important changes would be resetting stats, give everybody the same RNG and stop forcing free points for picking certain ships, in particular release Conqueror or present Monty. My expectations are that things will only get worse for CV in the next months. Except for losing less planes on return there only were nerfs. Well, WG got to appease the "recognized noob" and "the overrated noob" types of player. They both only get points from inflicting damage and kills, but not from other stuff like spotting or caps.

Now it's one torp squad instead of sometimes two or even three. Back then the chance to stack DoTs was better. Odds of getting DoTs are lower. I mean granted with old CVs I had things like Shoka 8 Torps and 10 bombs on one BB with the special playerbonuses so that he didn't get a single DoT when it mattered, but still. Flooding chances feel much lower.

Links: https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2017/09/18/wows-halloween-sneak-peek/ Well, the skin for the Nicolai is available to buy ingame, but why aren't all of these skins available? With all the cartoon ships the realism is thrown overboard anyway and I mean now, after the hard work on the skins is done? The send half of that linked post shows some nice ships like that Egyptian skin.

Well, I want to list a couple of issues just as an attempt, because things don't look good. Lets go through some. Standard Battles should have been removed from all tiers instead of being re-introduced to high tiers again. The disadvantages of the mode would be that gives the individual less impact or in other words it is more vulnerable to rigged MM. On top of that it's much more camper friendly. With these two combined it looks like driven by bias towards rewarding braindead BB noobs (f.e. these people who converted a tier 10 BB, play it all the time and do worse than a coop bot 9/10 games, biggest frontline ship camping in the corner). The shocking fact here is that the issue already was recognized, had some actions taken against it, but suddenly all the changes in the right direction got undone. Hell, who cares if there is less quantidity as long as it comes with a nicely noticable increase in quality. The mode basicly is like the HI-Virus. The few immune people to it are represented by the exception of a good standard match while the other matches in this mode are represented by people who are screwed by the disease. Double standards in balancing do a lot of damage. This can be viewed in multiple ways like comparing the tier 10 DDs of Germany and USSR or how BBs constantly get injustified buffs, directly (something on them gets improved) or indirectly (nerfs to other classes, favorable changes in game mechanics). It quite reminds of a bias in favor of HTs in WOT when basicly the worst people in the game get results that are in fact below average, but higher than what these people should get and misinterpretation of that is being used for injustfified buffs. An example of this would be high tier BBs losing one potencial firesource, being able to citadel some cruisers from all directions, getting the AA that made CV dissapear and sometimes shooting hole-in-hole from ranges much longer than the maximum of cruisers in the same tier. I read somewhere the people should get a warning to confirm when queueing up in a non-BB which sadly will be true most of the time. Have BBs been much more potent than corrupt lobbyists want you to believe and would they still be? Hell, yes! However, this is a video game where you got to take care of gaming specific parameters as well and this can force something unrealistic here and there. BB is far too strong, DD can be too good or balanced depending on radar distribution (other problem: things like 3 radar vs 1 radar can be a major imbalance as well... still some useless DDs there like that tier 5 torture device in the German tree), most CA are too week and most CV are too week. What is done to adress the issue? The new skill tree is like pouring gas into the fire. Fire like BBs using one fire source, being less likely to catch any fire (DE nerf for non-BB), DE getting more useful for BB and a dedicated DD nerf in SE combined with reduced chances of BFT based on recommended builds I saw on sources like the flamu video. Tier 10 gold camo is cancer! One of the reasons for me to stop playing WOT was that I got +2MM in 2/3-3/4 of my games there (when playing tanks that have the risc) since they made it so that losing credits in high tiers is almost impossible and because of that the worst people in the game were constantly driving their E-100/IS-7. The same thing happened with tier 10 BBs who snipe at max range and shimmys who die within a minute. This really makes tiers 8 and 9 much worse to play than they could be. WOT did allways have such issues with things like IS-7 players who hide/escape until finding a bottom tier to yolo-rush, but before the bad changes such players at least needed a lot of time in tier 8 premiums for the cash meaning the old economy did damage control. Some changes to MM left a similar feeling on tiers 5 and 6. In a way this is 40% of the ships and they got much worse to play. Extremely retarded abuse policies are another big one. The somewhat mirrorlike MM obviously is like assigning roles to people and supposed to at least impact things in a somewhat balancing like way. However, bad balancing decisions decisions sorta have BBs (in particular toptier) overrepresented in regards of individual impact. This means that one team getting a lot of inferior beings average BB players while the other team gets a tactical scenario that is like having BBs against a team without any can be pre-determining to a matches result and sometimes completely screw the gaming experience for people in the "unlucky team". An AFK sometimes would do more than certain BB players with some lighting up. Thereby it is obvious what the worse type of grieving is with a huge lead. WG cares about fairplay and fun so I am sure the likes of this are adequately dealt with... No, nothing happens. Even more interestingly I saw posts with screenshots of bot profiles that got 37% winrate for doing close to nothing which just is too high as if the are rewarded instead of punished.... Though there is one thing that mercilessly is applied. Whenever I defend myself against people who ruin my matches I get muted while the worst griefing is without consequences. Almost every day I play I get muted for objective comments with my only regret being to hold back. This means these people can ruin matches and put an additional mute on people on top of that. In WOT SPG players are called "scumbag" and in WOWS that term should be used for people who got reports left for chat when usually corner camping BBs, suicide rush shimys, tier 10 DDs who don't know what radar is and sniper DDs should have consumed all 7 of them within 1-3 games. Sometimes the 7 reports aren't even enough for the first game I play. This is not a new player failing. This is intentionally harming the own team like a teamkiller by denying a spot in the team that could have been taken by a useful player instead. RPF other people explained it already. I question the sanity of the people responsible for that skill making it into the patch. If the game was rated in a % score, this skill certainly costs it 15-25% just by itself. Where is QA when they could literally put quality on steroids by removing one bit? Camping being too easy and effective. This is getting a little bit situational. One bad thing would be that with RPF the BB now even knows where hidden danger might come when longrange camping just lets if have too much impact in some standard battle matches. In this case and many others design flaws add up. In this case it would be that not being at a cap already would scale much better with the players worth, if it was domination instead. Then you got your RPF. Post-game the flaws continue with a risc that (at least without premium) someone who tried to be useful, help the team, be a good team mate might lose credits while the botlike player in the team earned cash. Yet again we have something that is like as if the surgeon feeds the cancer in the left lung and removes the healthy right lung. Some things are situational in a way that a DD can get what he deserves when there are many radars and good CV players, but at the same time smoking up with a second spotter around can make camping far too foolproof. Standard battles and all of the priveleges by corner camping BBs still are the main issues here, but obviously the economy needs to be changed to be more rewarding for aggressive players while punishing a corner camper who is like a deserter. The game currently deals with it as if Schwanefeld would have gotten the highest knight's cross and Rudel would have put to Freisler trial. RNG noob bonus is retarded in so many ways. Lets look at German WWII 381mm cannons. Lets say a Bismarck fights a Tirpitz which both in theory have the same firepower. However, lets asume the Tirpitz opted for a main artillery build while the Bismarck went for the secondary build. This RNG noob bonus can have the Bismarck get less than half the spread on average when exchanging salvos with the Tirpitz while getting the benefits of the secondary build on top of that. This completely breaks the customization system. Another example would be that the Gneisenau is supposed to be weaker than the tier 8 German BBs with a little less armor and less guns being most of the difference. What if it consistently gets lower spreads? This can make it as if the Gneisenau had much more firepower. There are more examples like detonation on first damage taken or fire in a single 127mm or lower shell. Another insane one is when a corner camping BB shoots hole-in-hole at 25km. There is the common situation of bad players camping far away in their frontline ship and running away as soon as some enemy approaches the 20km mark. The bad player already gets a lot of advantages from aknowledged mechanics which are questionable and when there is that other thing on top of it it gets even worse. There simply are many camping related issues and they get worse instead of better. Obviously overlooked imbalances some things simply should be obvious, f.e. Hindenburg not having anything that compensates the lack of a radar compared to Moskwa and Des Moines or not having anything to compensate for the open sea performance of the Zao while having the similar disadvantage at close quarters (torps). Pensacola certainly has nice main artillery (upgraded), but that doesn't make up for how bad remaining properties are. The Hindenburg should get something other than a radar for ship distinction purposes (f.e. citadelling non-turtleback BB) and Pensacola could get changes like radar and better turret traverse. MM Spreads are a problem and a lot of ships should be protected against +2MM, more than there are right now. Lets take the Atago for example which has the odd property that the heal is too much when being toptier, but justified against higher tiers. There simply are a lot of situations with extreme power creeps in the second half of the tiers... What happens with cruisers at tier 9? What happens when radar starts apearing? What usually happens when carriers get +2? BBs scale most with the numbers and you can compare tier 5 vs 7 and tier 8 vs 10... Just examples... Based on the fact that "donators" keep the game running the most obvious one should be that most premium ships should be protected against +2MM. The reasons are similar to standard battle and it again looks like driven by bias in favor of noobs who drive their converted tier 10 ship all the time or giving free wins to some at the expense of others... To make matters worse the maps in higher tiers get more open and that increases the impact of "ships" and RNG which is another problem, f.e. the game quality while playing a certain ship already would be drastically increased by not getting certain foolproof-camp maps that require +2MM for that ship. A lot of properties sum up to issues here... Mods, no mods... This is being dealt with in such a stupid way. Just split the game into a strictly enforced no-mod queue and one where everything goes with stats of these being separated. This way there would be a place for the people who are like "W**P*** is evil, but I want my real pen indicator, my autoaim help, my class model, my last position highlight and my foliage remover" (lots of WOT players were like this when I still played) and there would be a place for people who just want to have good games. I mean I had good times and bad times in the game. There are a lot of broken mechanics which cost me more than they gave me (unlike noobs who abuse all of them constantly and deny their existence like try to hook up with girls by impressing them with photos of other people's privates). Some things look as if some people at WG think "our own game is too good. we must make it worse" while other things look like some people are mentally handicapped by political correctness as motivation for all the bias towards corner camping BBs which can't be denied. There is potencial in the game, but the potencial should be used. WOT certainly could have printed twice the cash, if they would have used it's potencial instead of primarily relying on noobs who are abusing it's flaws all the time.

They seem to deal with the German trees like in WOT and USN BBs seem to treated like Russian HTs in WOT. I bet it takes two patches at most until they nerf German DDs, because they will gain far more from the BB AP change than most other DDs as long as there allways is the noob who by himself would be like a bot, but gets dangerous despite of that due to constant cruiserlike spreads in his BB. The only reason why KM high tier BBs might get better stats would be the lower range forcing players closer to the caps in domination. "Ships with few cannons get better accuracy to compensate"... German ships with 8 guns in shitty layout with shitty arcs get inaccurate dispersion, but USN ships with 6 frontal guns probably have less than half the spread diameter on average with better penetration AND better times for lower chance of overmatch. For brain amputees who get consistent cruiserspreads in BBs for "reaons" the KM BBs might be better, but people who don't have this are screwed. "Germans get improved AP damage" 406mm USN AP has damage of KM 420mm AP (the AP imbalance is even worse when you compare the CAs of both nations) "Germans are good for brawling" Shitty AA, AP bomb vulnerability for brawling situations in which cruisers can't savely support you... But meanwhile MN, RM and USN get far superior AA and less AP bomb vulnerability for being able to savely borderhug... Only 6 frontal guns and shitty arcs aren't necesarrily brawler properties. For true balance and a brawler role the KM BBs would need to most CV proof on their own out of all BBs So called brawler and pusher just getting randomly instagibbed by AP bombers... The good bows simply gets compensated for with more vulnerable superstructures and the AP bomber vulnerability. Some of this BS might be justifyable, if USN and KM get proper citadels, but no... WG needs to act like in WOT. Well, I think that after the IFHE nerf CL with HE will be the trash ships, because right now they are mostly about the IFHE and WG almost certainly will not compensate them, if they make IFHE useless. Right now it's hard to say what should be done with an incoming unpredictable CV rework, but there are many obvious imbalances that should have been adressed long time ago. However, I would be very suprised, if the already superior Iowa isn't going to get buffed much more in the incoming patches. PS: Izumo is a shitty one as well. Hard to say which one is worse, because I played my Izumo very long ago and was even more unlucky with stacked tier 10 player retardation there. Most likely it depends on what maps, ships and players you get which ship is worse. Izumo certainly does better on some T10 standard battle campsite and FDG should be better in a T9 domination match. Though some other ships like Monty could need the citadel raised like the Conqueror as well. Edit: With the tier 8 comparisons. Firepower probably is the biggest factor of ships unless they have one outstanding weakness or strength. The main armament (with all factors like layout and arcs) of a Bismrack/Tirpitz looking like of a ship multiple tiers lower compared to an NC doesn't get compensated. Better camo, better performance against higher tiers and better AA properties (including citadel chance). Being forced to be closer to caps in domination is the only thing that might get the German T8 BBs better stats.

How severe this gets obviously depends on luck to some degree, f.e. if +2MM happens twice as often to you compared to somebody else in tier 8 ships there obviously is a difference in perception. Anyway, an old WOT pattern carried over to AW and potencially feels even worse. Many people try using the certain toptier spot of a tier 10 ships and the far-too-extreme power creep compared to tier 8 as an l2p replacement. In the beginning this was most common with Yamato and Shimakaze (many of them obviously still don't know of radar), but Montanas got more common, there are other tier 10 BB as well and lately it seems as if a lot of people convert Minotaurs. The type of player who hugs the Western white line while the enemy is doing lemming train or lemming camping in th far East simply is common as with NC, Iowa and tier 10 BB players. The Montana who wants even more injustified buffs so he does no longer need to run away from a half HP tier 9 ship, because it isn't a tier 8 cruiser. Other things would be the Shimakaze spending all game on trying to torp the only tier 8 BB in the other game and not hitting a single torp in the process or the Shimakaze who searches the shootout with the Khaba or the Shimakaze who ignores the the Des Moins at 10km, because it got a couple of km concealment left. Whoever denies that tier 10 is by far the worst one when it comes to player quality must be drugged up to levels that would kill 99% of the people out there instantanously. What is the big problem? As a tier 8 ship you are dealing with differences like the tier 10 ship of the line having up to +50% HP, massive firepower advantages and gimmicks added. Lets say a Bismarck having 8x380mm compared to 12x406mm (and reload upgrade in the tier 9/10 slot) or other parameters on cannons increase so that you get a comparison like New Orleans vs. Des Moines and it gets even worse when you add the heal into the equation. Another big ones would be the risc of one lucky salvo severely screwing a cruisers goes up time when there are things like the Monatana with it's BS spread on 12 cannons ("we increase sigma on BBs with 8/9 cannons to make RNG more consisted"). To make matters even worse someone had the idea to introduce even more radar carriers with DD concealment. Almost every line, even the ones who are said to have bad AA get massive AA leaps in tier 9 and/or 10 so that when carriers are involved sometimes the power creep gets just passively applied, so that CV gets screwed pretty hard as well (even more than other +2 ships do to CV). A particulary annoying one would be having lots of tier 10 DDs that are good to cap, but none of them bothering to cap and ending up forced to take the risc as a Kiev which usually doesn't end well. Tier 4 had the MM fixed, because +2 MM was too extreme, but most games in my tier 8 ships are unplayable, because of a +2 power creep that is even worse with usually even worse toptier players so that things get utterly unplayable. The MM often litterally composes matches like lots of tier 10, lots of tier 8, few tier 9 so that the tier 8 ships really get screwed hard as if it was intended to give free points for some bad players who play their tier 10 ship most of the time. It certainly is much worse than tier 5 vs 7 and actually I even would recommond tier 7 over tier 8 for premiums currently, because they don't meed the retarded tier 10 players and a power creep as extreme as tier 8 vs 10. In my personal case results vary drastically based on how lucky or unlucky I am with battletiers, f.e. losing over 90% of +2MM in tier 8, because of "reasons", "WG reasons". Another big problem is that in these tier 10 battles range camping is most common and easier to maintain compared to other tiers which makes the RNG noob bonus that gives some players tighter spreads than others even more impactful. Something must be done about this like for example... Protect ALL premium ships against +2MM Reduce the chance of +2MM or somehow normalize it, tier 8 is unplayable when 2/3 of your matches are +2 Balance power creep between tiers Do something that extremely bad players can't drive ships that certainly get a toptier spot all the time Get rid of the particular broken stuff like BBs that get cruiserlike spreads If tier 10 was that magic spot where players are better than in other tiers as noob ad hominem claims, there would be no need for such an absurd power creep to a tier they meet most of the time in random battles. Based on the extreme potencial for MM to screw people over based on what kind of people is in tier 10 ships most of the time, it simply is too much what the MM can do there currently. The more severe a power creep between tiers is the less you can do when your toptier is being denied by it's players. The severity of the issue that is being tolerated feels as either this is different on other servers or devs aren't playing this game.

Well, the vast majority of WG customers are megaretards like the typical tier 10 players or just supernoobs who desperately try to entitle RNG gifts as their accomplishments. Generally, I don't have any idea how it's any different given the fact that some people get even battletier luck, some get mostly toptier battles and I get over 90% +2 with all these 100% useless noobs that have the hardest tier power creep in the game. The Soviet DD is nothing more than depending on others to do the DD jobs for you and then either use some way type of cover or smoke (pretty cruiserlike only at drastically reduced impact) or shoot on the move and hope for enemies to get big spreads, because there are their bad turning properties that prove all the entitlement of lucky players what it really is. On top of everything it's particulary vulnerable to that kind of rigged MM when the other team has more DDs, without Soviet DDs... Neglected caps decide matches. Why the difference between stats? More of that retarded Yamato lolpen, more teams that do absolutely nothing when the Missouri radars enemies. Most Bismarck matches at a better time for BBs compared to Missouri having most matches played when it still had a balanced citadel and after a break now with the RN BBs that are build around people like you. Guess why many of your usual suspects usually change favorite ships on patchdays. Why would everyone who is truly good distract from his own skill by entitling such things that can come to everybody with the right dicerolls to be skill? Maybe, because of such things being the skill of that person? It's pretty embarassing to depend on such things despite of trying hard. That is like such a guy who has a small one, but hires another guy to do his wife infront of him and make her tell him how the other one is much better. Ohh, hahaha the noob who is proud on needing advantages equal to the enemy only getting 10% damage weapons in CS is talking again. That level of failure is unaccomplishable for everyone who deserves to be called a human. There often is nothing except for the noobs two favorite lines (USN BB, RN BB), cruisers with defAA which in particular the high tier cruisers who don't even meet CV in most battles use all the time or maybe it is because they are as smart as you and it takes them over 10k battles to figure out how to use hydro instead and well, I honestly would not be surprised, if you were unable to figure that out until somebody else shows you. In gamer regards you are at least 10 times over the harakiri-line, but obviously you never had honor to defend.. Perfectly what I am saying about that type of very bad players who try to entitle RNG gifts in pubs overfilled with bots to be anything else. That so-called common denominator is one ship out of 12 per team or one ship out of 24. Depending on battletier there is some weighting to it meaning someone who is has more toptier luck gets more out of it than someone who has a lot of the other end of the diceroll spectrum. Comparisons between a tier 8 and the tier 10 from the same line should make things undeniable (f.e. NO vs DM, Bismarck vs GKF). The common denominator in all random battles is a matchmaker, the only function in videogames that can pre-determine every single match before a single second is played and more than anything else designed around players that would have been permbanned in a conventional server working against their own team and a function that straight forward has the purpose to narrow the winrate spread. That is why games should get rid of that function. Just weeding out people like the white line Montana would make the game massively more enjoyable on average, but the stat people would be even more against this than the people who get banned, because they depend on them. The purpose of a game over everything else is winning and not a stat farm pattern from people who for suspicious reasons depend on comparisons with the typical white line Monty or the HE-only E-100 before. Why do certain people depend on that comparison with these people in such a high RNG environment so much? Fail vs epic fail players, obviously. You can't have a good game without winning, because that would be a compromise. The other big question is why perfectly the same player performance can give results ranging over all color codes on a segment. Couldn't be that all over the place, if it had creditibility. Where is the causation? The thing that these correlation addicted SJWs hate like nothing else. BTW these are the magic words for educated people to get why NC/Iowa/Monty didn't need any buffs, but certain USN cruisers needed despite of sometimes similar overall stats on the ships.

This rigged BS is making it unplayable lately. With the tier 8 CVs im at more than 20 games with the meganoobs (tier 10 players) in row. Minotaurs, Des Moineses, every noob cruiser has defAA for the one tier 8 carrier they meet like every 3rd game, countless Shimas who usually don't get a single move right and obviously the most broken noobline ever, USN BBs that for free get AA comparable to cruisers with defAA. OMG the poor noob in the USN BB might die to CV while camping the white line. So lets give even more buffs to that line, because it's the ships and not the fact that it took me over 4000k battles to meet 1 good NC, 1 good Monty and still wait for the first good Iowa to be encountered in a random. Planes just popping and even if something hits it's 1/3 of the alleged flooding chance and 5-8k per torp. With the Kiev it's extremely rigged with a ship that is for players with good RNG (tier dependency, needing other DDs to contest caps for you, highest dependency on enemies shotgunning for a tier 8 DD) it's quite ridiculous as well. Streaks of tier 10 games, not a single of the meganoobs (tier 10 players) is doing anything useful. The closest games assembled by this MM that only 100% mentally handicapped people claim to be not rigged are half the enemy team left. The one ship that is better on standard battles obviously gets domination almost exclusively. If you don't have the god tier RNG to usually be toptier or at least midtier in tier 8, it is unplayable. These efforts to generate free points for noobs like the tier 10 power creep, balancing based on generating free points for meganoobs (high tier USN BB, RN BB). WG even enables these scumbags with muting people so that every mute literally is a badge of honor. Obviously in the current state you can't recommend tier 8 premiums to anyone except for people you hate with more than just a passion. Burning the money is a better investment. If you don't have godtier RNG with MM in general, the best thing for your stats you can do is free XP 100% of tier 8 ships. Tier 5 is balanced compared to this.

Just quickly going through some points made... "No +2 would be P2W" Emmm, certainly not. Tier 8 is very popular meaning there would be other tier 8 that are toptier too and facing tier 9 would be still possible. "DDs and +2" Emm, tier 8 DDs can meet ships from tier 6 to 10. It's up to you to look up radar data based on which of these tiers are encountered and how hydros get better. Belfast has it's reputation for doing certain things, but right now there is a certain rare DD and two regular DDs are in the making. They will probably get weaker cannons the a Belfast, but using such tools with DD concealment and even having torps are game elements I don't really want to be teamed up with, because it's too much reponsibility on random team members I can't influence. The other things is that obviously as a DD you have a better time when there are no radars or less radars. "BBs and +2" Emmm, one of the extremely severe power creeps. In case of every line the tier 10 ships is so much better that it feels like old WOT MM as a tier 6 that was meeting 9s and 10s almost every game and got the ace tanker the one single time it only faced tier 8. "Helping average tier 10 players (extremely bad by standards of all other tiers)" and "there is a tier 10 ship to deal with the enemy tier 10 ship" They certainly don't progress from a negative number to something considerable within one game and the other big thing is that the tier 8 ship often has to directly combat tier 10 ships, because the own tier 10 are far inferior in comparison with a coop bot. Eventually this just makes for running against a wall and a game with not only a 100% unchangable result, but a cap on a generally bad match as well just because some extremely bad players want to power creep two tiers lower ships all day long. Maybe it is a stupid idea to potencially make people not want to play tier 8 where most of the premium revenue comes from. "Tier 10 population" Maybe there are reasons that nobody wants to play that broken tier with these [edited]. I mean even statpadders who desperately look for the worst enemies they can find to claim it means the same as beating good players often don't wanna go there, because it's too annoying and that really means something "The system teaches camping" Even though standard battles have been returned to high tier to help campers and bad players there is domination in most battle and this mode is pretty simple. For someone who is even remotely mentally able it should be obvious that usually the caps win these games which is active, not passive. Granted, some people fail to get that, but this is on them. "Chances of getting +2" Varies a bit from ship to ship. With BBs it's roughly 2/3 lately, but for carrier it's much worse lately. Seems like them being limited to one per match and things looking like imbalances make most people quit CV at tier 7 or 8 really make it very bad for them. Comparison with T5/T7 The big difference is that ranges are shorter and ships turn better in regards to gameplay and generally ship power creep is lower. This results in 5vs7 being drastically more enjoyable compared to 8vs10 even though it's still extreme. Another big problem is that playerskill can do more. These low manouverability ships combined with the high ranges drastically increase the impact of some people simply getting better RNG than others meaning things like 15km+ shell exchanges and one guy firing tiny groups while the other one shotguns most of the time. "Cruiser 8vs9" It seems to be in line what happens between these tiers. Now basically Atago and Fiji have heals there, but AFAIK all cruisers get heal at tier 9 and Neptune gets a much better heal. The ability of cruisers to take some shots, hide for a bit while repairing and then come back with more reserves makes for more difference than it seems on the first look. The only one that really doesn't care is MK since IFHE. Comments of butthurt tier 10 abusers Keep proving me right you dum***ses Statements like "Challenge" There might be some challenge to getting damage and such, if you care for it, but based on it being the game the ultimate objective should be victory. This is kinda hard with such an insane power creep, if you own toptiers often are failing to a degree that looks as if they intentionally do as bad as possible like the Monatana that hugs the Western white line when all enemies are far East. You can really hurt a Yamato when you catch it off-guard, a Shimakaze has a long time of effectively being disarmed and Minotaur has it's citadel, but there are Montanas with lowered citadel and spreads that encourage range camping and the Conqueeror. Monarch is being used as example a lot here, but lowered citadel, heal, better camo than some involved cruisers, RN BB HE. It's basically fighting broken game designs by picking broken game designs which in return says "avoid non-broken, remotely OK and anything in between game designs"...

Well, this actually is what you are doing when being called out on your deficites. What you demonstrate here is like these people who are proud on being 100kg overweight, because it really is severe to have the online-alt-persona solely based on something that is comparable to the other team only doing 10% damage in a CS game. To make matters worse there even might be people who get screwed worse by RNG than me, maybe twice as bad. Just the mere fact that you are unable to make the distinction between a player missing the easy shot and one getting a spread like demonstrated in your screenshots and the other one shotgunning with the intended target being center-point of that spread. Did another one of your multiple personalities post the screenshots that proof all of this? You sort of managed to dismantle the noob ad hominem arguments big time even though they had no fundament to begin with. Anyway, that 1-10 ratio is a big one already, but what if others are screwed twice as hard by the system as I do? This would mean you depend on a 2000% advantage compared to them. I would be embarassed, if I was half as catastrophic. What makes this even worse is that this still is there with you trying hard while these others casually mess around so that it gets even more severe. Science, the enemy of the ones who profit on design flaws in modern games. A forward-upward diagonal vectory from the shell being launched and a downward acceleration vector that causes the drop. Guess what gravity is. Sure, based on various factors there still can be differences, but the score still remains the same and somehow ships are managing to lob shells over islands ingame as well. You might notice sometime by the end of next year now after I pointed out to look for it. Ohhh, BTW you so-called realism. Queen Elizabath vs bow-on Myoko, no angling, recently, my average RNG, ~8km, turrets fired one at a time, double turrets, paralel guns, each time both shells far off to the side, Myoko dead center. With the alleged "normal spreads" this would have been a bow overmatch for double-citadel each time so far more than necesarry to kill him compared to complete denial by something the player can't influence and [edited] even argue with realism for such things. Emmm, you defended the lowered USN BB citadels. Anyway, you probably haven't realized yet so I need to tell you. One part of keeping people to play and spend money, a few more bucks than necessary is making people get multiple lines, possibly convert of the one bad ship many lines have (which they even did early on in WOT already), make some people convert over all stock periods (so that they can claim their better stats is just from them) etc., etc., etc. ... This won't work well, if all of these ships are the same with different looks. There somehow got to be noticable differences like you have with the tier 10 cruisers. You basically are the Conqueror version of that other bob who wants his Montana to compensate for lack of skill. Just the combination of that healing potencial, lowered citadel (for no reason like the USN BB buffs) and to make it worse the heal even having higher percentages of repairable damage makes it look as if the ship is where it is intended to be. I mean granted, could be. I though when it looks as if shells simply explode midair it's a de-sync issue and well, netcode issues are now the norm, not the exception with new games. Anyway, I judged the trajectory based on what the game displays.

Let me guess, you have over 10 accounts in each social media site and spam there how great Japanese cartoons and wrestling are with all of them... Using an overall category can't ever be wrong in particular when there are things like Southern Dragon or the new Halloween skins or some very colorful other skins that probably could fall into different categories based on who is distinquishing them anyway. To make this even better with using the overall category instead of a subcategory there is no risc of using the wrong sub-category :) I had to get more than I wanted, because I got the ones I wanted like the Egyptian CM last :(

So you are trying to say that the game displays things different than it calculates them? Thing with ballistics is pretty simple. Gravity is constant causing a drop over time, velocity then determines how flat the trajectory is (or isn't) and projectile properties give you some variation in how the projectile keeps velocity, but that is more steady compared to the abrupt change in WOWs which looks more like certain projectiles losing stability upon going subsonic with a general accuracy loss at this point. I have seen such trends with cannons, catapults, small arms, arrows or even just thrown objects. I don't get why a simple conventional round without any special features like the once in WOWS should be any different. Another story if it was for things such as assisted rounds, but I think such stuff got common after the time of the WOWS ships. I mean yesterday I saw someone who reminded me of you "654321_2". As usual a single BB on the minimap acting so retarded that there are no words for it and as usual checking confirmed the suspicion that it's the NC. Basically someone like you only with average spreads and the kind of people who the USN BBs are balanced around in an attempt to give such people the same results that other people get with other BBs despite of not playing as retarded. Like holy crap, mentioned player only was RNG, MM and imbalances on his USN BBs, but no playerimpact, performance or whatsoever. It's the same like out of noob-SJW culture acting as if 8vs10 as a powercreep even worse than 5vs7 doesn't make no difference in order to keep the narrative of "good hightier players" when in reality not a single tier is even remotely as noob infested as tier 10 which is all about players worse than bots still being kept strong by the excessive powercreep they have when fighting lower tiers and RNG as with increasing distances it simply can do more, in the tier that is almost exclusively populated by braindead campers. Reality is you performed to the level you allways perform when it's just about you. You defend one of the most overpowered ships against nerfs while in reality the tier-by-tier powercreep and the class-by-class powercreep limited the discussion to how severe it should be. I mean it can' get any worse than you. You are a subpar pubbie, zero skill, zero tactics, zero movement, but for whatever reason you get carried by RNG noob bonus. They could allow certain teams in CSGO to use wallhacks and it wouldn't even be remotely as much of a benefit as this BS with the spreads which in CSGO terms would be as if the weapons only would do 1/10 damage for one team, because indirectly this is the equal to notorious shotguns getting linelike spreads. What RNG you get is more important than skills. It the same like getting much higher fire chances or much lower fire chances +/- build than what the game changes or luck with the battletiers so that you don't get powercreeped. Anyway, you are just about broken advantages that are like one team getting weapons with 1/10 of the damage in CSGO and you are proud of being such a failure. I mean I have seen many absolutely trash players, but never seen anyone remotely as retarded or talentless or entitled as you and the severe butthurt about you overpowered paddingship having balancing changes requested proofs that. Take an average kind and fill him up with close to lethal dosages of any drug known to mankind and he wouldn't be retarded enough to think that Montana doesn't at least need 1.8 sigma and the old citadel, but you are proud on being 100% unable, just inferior trash whenever no having insane advantages. Whether aiming for a ship gives you a tiny spread with most shells on the ship or a huge circle around the center of the ship is bigger than impact. In fact with the spreads you demonstrated to get consistently you suck extremely hard with not getting twice the damage values you have. Ohhh well, you were still stupid enough to post a list that features Alabama and Alabama ST, same ship basically, completely different versions. On top of this except for a bit of manouverability it's they are similar to NC and compare the results. The conclusion of any remotely educated human being (two differences compared to you) would be considering the possibility that this ship even overperforms based on who uses it. Yet again, you limitations (or some of the many) still keep you at failing to realize how 6 frontal cannns with better individual performance and 9 in total are better than four weaker frontal cannons and 8 in total. Probably next you are going to tell people that on 4-figure monthly income you can have a better life than on 5-figures, because you are too stupid to realize how much more 5 can get you... As long as it's possible that people get linelike spreads consistently on shotgunlike spreads, there are insane imbalances so people can only play what is most broken, platoons are still there and more I don't get why I should support the entitlement of a group that might have some good players and some trash players who just run the strategies and get lucky. Your noob-understanding of better dicerolls equal better skill like getting linelike spreads on salvos that sometimes disperse COMPLETELY around the target with the same aim for others. Just a new level of noob-entitlement. Stop blaming you inability to lead further on the ship god damnit! Izumo has a better accuracy and Iowa has a better sigma for eventually similar accuracy, but then for no reason Iowa has higher damage despite of lower caliber and better translation of it into damage due to the drop angle reducing your risc of overpen and making citadel hits more likely. You retard earlier complained about FdG being so much more accurate, but fair as I am with you I give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean your usual excuses for being unable to lead further. On top you completely neglected all the other advantages, because the citadel lowering on Iowa gave it better survivability and nobody except for you would argue AA or mobility, but you probably make such claims as well. I already saw a self-entitled good player who proudly destroyed all his creditibility and proved himself the noob he truly is. Entitling RNG to be skill just shows who has zero potencial to get things done on his own and every truly great player agrees. Ask anyone who is considered skilled in the general competetive gaming community. Like a CS/CSS/CSGO legend or a Q3/Q4/QL/PL legend, they will just consider you the troll you are with entitling spread advantages that are like 1/10 damage weapons for the others to be skill and your IQ must be below room temperature as well, because otherwise you would have never proven that yourself. Flamu in one video says some BBs need buffs and in the next video says "in tier 6 and higher there is no such thing as a bad BB" and too many quotes to list based on the balancing between them and other classes, in particular cruisers which isn't even remotely as broken as a CV against a two tiers higher USN BB as CV the class that is supposed to counter BB. Give me these linelike spreads instead of the shotguns I get most of the time and I beat your tier 9 damage values after drinking a bottle of absinthe after a couple of months without alcohol... Completely incomparable, in particular with shotgun ships. Talking about a skill ceiling when the skillgap is all about getting linelike spreads on notorious shotguns for something that is like CSGO with one team doing full damage and one team doing only 1/10 damage on their weapons. The level of failure to depend on this is unprecedented. Give everybody the same RNGs, reset all stats and you will need to do triple Nikolai divisions all day long to reach yellow. It's easier to entitle the work of others like 1000% RNG advantages than admitting to have 10% of the skill of others. All others games you played without such double standard BS didn't screw you. You were bottomfeeder there, because they treated your fairly. I mean just like lol this advantage by itself and then getting butthurt as soon as the favorite paddingship gets called out on the nerfs it needs. BTW next hypocrite-move of yourself you are constantly blaming others for your inability to lead a little more with lower shell velocity... Noob gets lucky, noob claims things are alright... Now again the real life comparison without ever looking into typical real world fighting ditances of warships, hit ratios etc... Just wanted to test whether you realize the contraction based on Alabama, Alabama ST and NC in the same dataset you quoted and how this by itself denies all of your... I would call it "oppinions"... Still, the question whether the ship doesn overperform or not with it's users has been completely ignored which again is a major contradiction. This gets even worse with WOWS being a product of the company that made WOT and BBs being the closest to HT. There were many overpowered HTs there that had below average overalls, because of that typical crowd to only use these so-called "heavies" or "the big classes"... It might look like I am aggressive, but I actually gave the benefit of the doubt and second chances to you multiple times... It's sorta obvious that you don't know how to deal with such numbers. Someone who shows spreads that are like easily multiplying the damage done with the same playstyle compared to unlucky or even average RNG is the fundament of all your entitled claims and you are too stupid to realize this. Your ingame knowledge already ends before it gets gaming specific, because of a complete absence of logics, not deficite, ABSENCE! All of your statements are based on comparisons like a swimmer doing better in the water than someone in Italian concrete boots. The same way you still keep blaming your inability to lead further on slower velocities in this generally slow game in others, but acuse others of blaming what you are actually doing? You aren't just low in game, you are low in real life as well and if you ever act like here you head will point in one direction and immediately point to another one. I mean just the stupidity you demonstrate that you could get away with the noob ad hominem arguments about higher stats being padded up, but you even demonstrate that it's all about advantages that make wallhacks in egoshooters seem to be nothing in comparison... And honestly, before your screen demonstrations of what spreads RNG noob bonus (because this is what it is) can give to people I didn't think the differences are that severe. I only though half as much is the worst that it can gift to people. Strange, here someone needed to understand the game to get good results. Well, you have lines that nicely demonstrate the chance like USN BBs that start as shotguns that are only playable for people with good RNG, then have mediocore RNG for a while until suddenly the 2.0 sigma BS with too much penetration potencial compared to various other lines (same class AND other classes) starts. BB somehow should be more consistent, but less derpy. It's insane what a single lucky salvo can do to some ships. The thing with the citadels makes obvious what kind of players are defending the change. Imagine someone in WOT would request his Type 5 HT to have armor as good as it's frontal armor on the side and complaining about the derpgun being too inaccurate, because he needs to lead further with the derpgun velocity. This is the level of that El6ayZer. These BBs with extremely tight spreads are a problem for the balance between different classes and a problem when there are multiple tiers involved with noticable accuracy differences. Anyway, I doubt this one I mentioned still denies the power creep of cruisers when it comes to tier 8 against higher tiers, but claims the Atago is OP and doesn't get what is wrong here. BBabie confirmed

This package actually is a true gamble, but in case of other packages offered by WG over the years many actually were more profitable for the player than buying gold (highly imacted by individual inventories in case of shipbundles). In case of the big pumpkin bundle you can't do such math though. It's similar to that October revolution thing where I bough the ship expecting at least one 2500 dubloon container and it didn't come, but there certainly are people who got two or three of them. You might get a lot of gold, but then there already is a major difference between T3 and T8 duplicate compensation. But acusing others of trolling

Just compare the BBs in the high tiers to the other classes and no sane person could argue against nerfs anyway and as long as MM doesn't get changed to +/-1 bottom tiers are screwed up too hard, in particular tier 8 vs 10 which is the hardest since they changed tier 4 MM, faildivisions excluded. On top of the interesting fact how NC/Iowa fanboys insist on the lowered citadels shows you what you are dealing with when it comes to the fanboys of that line like the noob who shows screenshots of the worst shotgun of it's tier having linelike spreads for him and claiming that to be "skill". Emmm, GKF is even worse in these regards with worse pen, worse effective accuracy and worse reload on the same damage... IIRC this is the only case of a ship losing lots of AA upon going up a tier... Yamato only has 3 cannons and just a tiny bit extrapen, but it's bigger, less stealthy and less manouverable to a Motana. On top of all of this BBs are too good compared to other classes in that tier anyway. Ahhh, at this level injustified buffs are argued for. Four lines and there already are considerable contradictions about the meaning of these correlations. BTW do you know that many significant (accepted and causing many followups) scientistic studies have a samplesize far, far below 1% of the population? I suppose you are taking this as anti-correlations, because 1.8 Alabama does better than 2.0 NC there, but who am I to judge with all the contradictions here. Anyway, how is this supposed to be high level anyway, if people get no bigger differences between Iowa and Izumo as long as Iowa is better at everything except for taking a beating while angled, in particular bow-on fighting... At least that ship feels like moving and isn't shotgunning so often compared to Izumo and it has better AA (tier 9 and tier 10 CV being pretty rare compared to other tiers) You already made anti-correlation statements and maybe the NC performance there has something to do with that whenever you check which BBs is camping in the corner it almost certainly is a USN BB... Though, in a way you are right. When you post multiple screenshots of Bismarck getting linelike spreads on salvos while many other players have the experiences that give Bismarck/Tirpitz (=more or less same main artillery) the reputation to be the worst shotgun of it's tier. You posted some nice anti-correlation evidence. Where is the comparison to what the typical USN BB player gets on other ships? Yet again delusional by you... What if the typical USN BB faboy is like 30% on USN DD, 35% on USN CA, 40% on USN BB? Oooops... In WOT noobmeter even has a dedicated function for this and strangely it did the same with various Soviet vehicles. I have already seen profiles that looked like orange and yellow overalls, all but one ships red and orange, but only playing one tier 10 BB since getting it with green numbers on it... You look like like these vegans who claim that their diet is healthier based on them not even being able to quote the right numbers from their data. I only need to look at my at progress segments on wows-numbers to see how far results with exactly the same playing can spread and in regards of individual RNG I never had spreads like a Bismarck shooting a straight line spread at 12km. Granted, you have you bit of "does he dodge or keep sailing straight forward", but increasing velocities and/or decreasing manouverability in higher tiers makes "how far do the shells spread around the center of your target" a bigger deal. WOWS does not have a realistic ballistic curve. At the limit of a ships range shells do decelerate different (suddenly deceleration increases massively, gravity consistent, odd drop pattern) compared to reality result in a sudden noticable change of arc at high range. This is how some bounces of negative slopes happen at high ranges. This is such an arcade vs simulator thing... How is it on me whether there is a line or tiny elipse around the sealine midship or a huge circle with that area in the center of it? Still not explained... Why did you panic then and resort to a combination of ad hominem arguments without even checking whether they contradict each other or not? Intellectually you obviously fail to distinct repairable from non-repairable damage which changes a lot... In particular when being uptiered and on ships that have heals it's worse than the other tier 10 BB based on it's characteristics.

And a lot of game mechanics are far from realism like such a Jap cartoon where they just stand somewhere, yell and suddenly everything explodes... Anyway, I think this is done. I wouldn't have been surprised, if they dropped it, because WG already had lots of event content that was more fun than the main games and dropped it for good after the event.

tl;dr someone getting a 5m diameter spread and someone else getting a 50m diameter spread at the same range is supposed to be on the player in your dysfunctional mind and because of it being that you don't get why people laugh at you Sorry I was forgetting you. I simply didn't deal with extremely stupid people for a couple of days so nobody reminded me of you. Start to finish you are consistent with nothing but BS and a quick look at WOWS numbers shows what is going on. USN BBs create higher ratings than weaker BBs of other lines in their rating, probably due to it being based on averages and USN BB being played worse than others. More or less the same like T-54 in WOT back when it was the best tier 9 med, but that Japanese paper tank with poor accuracy needed like much better numbers in all categories for the same rating. If that spread is normal for you on that range with that ship you are utter garbage as a player for not having more than twice the average damage you have. This is why the game has zero competetive value. A random baboon like you just can have these shells land while someone else gets only only a fraction on the ship with the same ships, same positions, same speeds, same aiming. Your your genetic garbage brain certainly can't comprehend this, but and overpen and a citadel on the same salvo because of RNG would mean up to 10 of these overpens are needed to do the damage of the citadel and then 100% of the overpen is repairable compared to 10%/35% of the citadel. I mean this is all you have, monkey sees, monkey does, monkey gets lucky and only plays the most overpowered ship, monkey acts as if he is good and you even dare to be surprised about people laughing at you. What are you? The Jason Genova of videogaming or the Jason Blaha of videogaming? You must have 100% failure rate if you must define yourself about getting better results solely on tighter spreads and even being far from the potencial that grants. Everybody who is capable of getting things done without bonuses like such lucky spreads would realize that actually the Conqueror damage numbers on these stats are effectively inflated from repairable fire damage compared to the Montana all in all doing best with AP (3 more cannons than Yamato with shell-per-shell values that don't reflect how much smaller it is and more reliable spread+penetration+reload compared to GKF) leaving less damage repairable meaning the effectively inflicted damage on Montana certainly is much higher than Conqueror. On top of this most Monty players just sail broadside in a straight line relying on the ship to carry them compared to Conqueror players trying to abuse all the broken elements of their ship. In fact both got retarded citadels and retarded users who defend that, because they depend on it. Some people are luckier than others or vice versa. Just check things like the threads about what people get from supercontainers or how some people won multiple lotterylike events here compared to others participating in all of them, but not winning anything. Such things like the RNG noob bonus are killing the game, because things like two Bismarcks fighting each other, one with ASM1 and the other one without that upgrade and the one without the upgrade consistently getting clearly better spreads, because of "reasons" is simply killing the competetive value. There is a certain correlation, but only within the limits of the box by such other factors. That insane power creep of a +2MM is another big thing, in particular +2 for tier 8 where you have the worst "natural" power creep (possible without division, f.e. bottom tier cruisers probably not having heal additionally to massive number disadvantages) and the most retarded toptier players so that MM can screw you over even harder. USN Citadels have to be further above water lines again in order to adjust for dispersion, because the player only can aim for the center of the area he wants to hit and after that the dices roll. Game knowledge which you don't have like you fail to understand the thing with gun arcs or why 6 frontal cannons are better than 4 (f.e. NC vs Bismarck). I honestly don't even know what to say, because I am fairly certain I could just look for random non-gamers on the street and they would be able to figure out that the 6 frontal cannons are better than 4. The self-entitled expert is completely overchallenged with that... The statement about KM BBs and their citadels is BS like all you claim, because full damage AP bombs technically are citadels AND at maximum range a deck hit above the citadel has a fair chance to hit it. Granted, spread RNG and time to react for the other captain and non-USNBB captains being more likely to not sail a straight line... Doable even with not so great cannons, f.e. Bismarck vs. FDG, but working on things like Missouri as well. I was out of heals and below 20k HP when I found out... Bismarck being better at +2 than NC and Amagi is just retardation. Amagi and NC can keep a distance combined with better camo for easier disengaging if necesarry. On top of that tier 10 features more egoistic, unreliable campers than any other tier meaning when the Bismarck gets closer as it must for damage it not only faces the power creep, but is more likely to not get any support as well. Half of it is playermade, but it's like the saying with correlation and causation. I already had countless arguments with [edited] who were proud of not getting the relation between these two. You as someone who insists on your lowered citadels in order to make the ship more forgiving at your broadside-straight-line-sailing make WSAD comments? Did you ever not get beaten up when leaving mom's basement, if you act like this on the streets or do you act like the silent person who hides in corners out there? Ohhh, I guess statistically insufficient sample... The Flamu vids are sorta interesting based on statements he made when facing these ships in other classes. What did you ever master? Get two lucky lowspreads and try to complain you somehow managed to condense that yourself? Anyway, you claim to be an expert so you should know how HE+Fire damage compares to AP damage in high tiers where most ships can heal. Winrate is not that difficult to interpret you act as if these raw numbers are wit's end. So yeah, you got to take them as such. Even if these two things where Montana beats Conqueror weren't true... Why does it beat GKF and Yamato so clearly in a tier where most experienced players agree about BB GENERALLY being too good? Either way, nothing but entitlement like people who migrate into Europe, get everything pushed in their backside and dare to complain about not getting higher quality AND quantidy for free...

People play their tier 10 BBs all the time for the time to compensate for being unable to get anything done on even tiers. There is a reason behind them doing it. Some people even pay 100-150 Euro to convert these ships and they don't do it without a purpose. The thing with the citadels is just that on average NC/Iowa/Monty players are even more retarded that Shimmy players on average (lots of them still don't know of radar, typical player with tier 10 as most played tier). I mean whenever you see a BB camping in a way so retarded that it only can be one line checking who it is allways confirms that it's the NC/Iowa/Montana. Granted, the FdG and GKF might only seem better due to their main artillery forcing them to get closer, but you only can make such comparisons based on what happens. However, the citadels have been lowered just to give these people the same results as IJN/KM BBs that worked harder for the same values and that is the opposite of balancing. KM BBs are supposed to be so survivable to compensate for the inferior main artillery and IJN BBs are supposed to be squishier in order to compensate for the superior main artillery. USN hight tier BB now have the broken BS with lowered citadels, the tight spread and far to good value per shell. On average Monty gets done more in less time than Conqueror which by most is considered a gamebreaker. WG obviously is biased for the USN BB, because otherwise they would have added "non-repairable damage" to the list and bang, everybody could have seen it. Well, I mean I could open an IQ test page and poop on the mouse which would score higher than you. Static ships, possibly multiple times and an OP ship for the experiment... Wow! The picture of the Bismarck again proves clearly that RNG is bigger than skill, because for that shot you would need to get an eliptical spread that it like <5x50m which is about dicerolls and finding the enemy that gives broadside in such an unnecesarry way. Though, usually being that USN BB might be why you want the lowered citadels and lowered citadels are less likely to get hit by plunging shells when you sail away over 20km away from where you team needs a BB. At least you were smart enough to cover up the major advantage of NC being able to make 6 guns work bow on compared to Amagi and Bismarck combined with these guns being superior on gun-by-gun performance, but that certainly was by accident. The main reason why I care about this is +2MM. When being put in a tier 10 battle as tier 8 ship I have less than 10% winrate in such battles on an account with tier 8 as most played tier with 54.xx% oerall. The powercreep combined with the own tier 10 often being worse players than coop bots simply makes these matches 100% unplayable. The tight spreads at ranges of many high tier BB combined with the broken citadel lowering is a major part of it. The Conqueror release and unecesarry Montana buffs make it worse than it used to be when GKF was new and at least had the cruiser-sized superstructure, shitty concealment, shitty manouverability and inferior cannons compared to a Montana that has more theoretical DPM combined with lower spreads and better penetration to get closer to it's theoretical DPM. If there was no +2MM for tier 8 ships I simply would not play these unplayable, random, camper acts with even lower average skill than tier 10 which tier 10 battles are. It's just these people in tier 10 battles are so inferior, f.e. recently I was the only tier 8 BBs and alone on the side, they Shimmy was trying to torp me all game, didn't hit a single torp and though to play well or when you see the kind of people that caused the sigma buff on Montana, full HP Montana running away from 30k HP Amagi with a destroyed frontal turret. I mean just the mere fact that people are allowed to have a tier 10 DD as most played ship despite of still not knowing about radar so that some unlucky tier 8 ships in their team get cheated on each and every time. What does all the armor criticism on individual mean anyway? The superstructures usually take damage from BB AP, most HE that they meet and most other AP when not angled a lot. Decks usually don't withstand plunging AP from bigger cannons. The only real difference is that IJN citadels are pretty reliable and USN for BBs that are lucky to get cruiserlike spreads on BB when exposed. Such stuff doesn't varry too much. Things like the broken Conqueror heal (that even heals higher percentages of cita and pen than other BB), the differences in concealment, citadel properties, the combination of manouverability+size that simply makes GKF and Yamato easier to hit than the other tier 10 BBs etc. simply makes for more differences. There is not a single evidence for the Montana players earning their clearly better results compared to GKF and Yamato, but ingame their performance usually looks like they earn worse results. I can't say it often enough.

Is there any major change in detonation mechanics recently? I got multiple detonations in few games lately. Though this could just be a part of rigged mechanics, becaus most of these battles have such heavily rigged MM that you can forecast the loss within 120 seconds. *Edited Anyway, back to topic... The ratio should be somehow like one detonation each 3 torp hits and that is beyond anything I have seen in the past, even on DDs.

Well, where to start. The British BBs obviously are another audacity, but lets be fair. Certain high tier USN BBs are as broken since a couple of injustified buffs. I will try to go through all of these issues and how they ruin the game. BB Bias is somewhat similar to the obvious HT bias that is making WOT TOTALLY unplayable, even if the other issues wouldn't be there. USN and RN BBs are most broken in my oppinion. They have a combination of accuracy, "range-armor", shell properties, concealment and AA that makes them foolproof when just hiding and sniping from far away. Balancing would be if a CV would rape them without losing many planes in such situations, but obviously there are issues. The buffs or rather current state of their citadels is absolute BS. With all the advantages such ships should get citadeled even by two tiers lower heavy cruisers when giving broadside. On the German BBs their citadels actually are fine, because of how trash their main artillery (range, effective accuracy, penetration properties, gun layout) is compared to the other BBs. I wonder what the rock-paper-scissors is... Some German BBs have hydro while other BBs have even more destructive artillery against DDs which both will lead to DDs suffering even though they are to some degree intended to counter BBs. Another extremely retarded thing would be bow-on citadels and the Yamato in general. There should be more aggression potencial for cruisers and BBs with savety from that BS. It literally acts as a mechanic that helps the camper most of the time. Bows should be harder so that most ships don't get punished for playing a game instead of camping so hard anymore. The Yamato already has it's 2.1 sigma. Though there is a bit of an imbalance with Montana after getting countless injustified buffs having 12 extremely accurate and high pen guns with almost the same damage. Still, both should be less effective at range. Then there is another thing. The absurd firing range gap is another thing that helps BBs to camp like they camp now. With a couple of km range advantage over cruisers they can negate damage completely with the range-gap. I understand that there should be some range-gap, but not as big as it is right now. On top of it countless idiots who play Yamato or Monty all day add the range-upgrade and then there is the high accuracy. There obviously are attempts to make fights between BB and cruisers foolproof. Whenever cruisers have anything going like IFHE there are quickly tested changes or in case of CV that have even more bias against them than cruisers there are ships like Graf Zeppelin labeled as "balanced". It sounds like a few changes fix all of this, but covering everything would fill a book. Generally USN and RN BBs are most broken and look like intended to give good results to the most stupid of the idiot-dominated community in WG games. Both lines sooner or later get extreme accuracy for range camping and AA that protects them from CV even when sailing on their own. At least one shell type has good properties at all ranges. They are protected against giving citadel to BBs and severely need citadels over the waterline back. The insane RN heel in high tiers looks like some developer read Churchill's Stalin admirations... If BB would be balanced, their average results would be clearly below average, because BBs have less quality behind the steering wheels than other classes, in particular high tier USN BBs. TX Powercreep makes T8 vs T10 feel even more broken than T5 vs T7. Though a lot of it has to do with some meganoobs dying up or converting 1, 2 or 3 T10 ships (most common with Yama, Monty or Shimmy) put a permanent camoflage on it and play fail them all day with immunity from credit losses, even when it's someone with Shimmy as mostplayed ship who still doesn't know of radar which probably is the case with most Shimmy players. It might be some perception issue with both mentioned powercreeps being similar, but T10 being more noob-infested than T7 makes it harder to defend yourself against your own teams in T8 when being bottom tier. What would be examples? Lots of hightier torps doing far too much damage to T8 where most cruisers can't even heal parts of the damage back. In matches with tier 8 as toptier the Atago profits tremendously from it's heal and something similar happens when T8 cruisers face T9/T10 cruisers who suddenly get their heal. Usually as you go up the lines there are allways some numbers getting better, but in particular in T9 and T10 there are lots of other major leaps that make for a lot of powercreep between the tiers like heels on the cruisers, certain lines suddenly getting much more of the same guns or more specific stuff like the leap of German hydro on non-CAs. It simply is too much and battletier luck usually is the biggest factor in my recent winrate, because I am far below 10% winrate in +2MM and the other types of MM turn my overall winrate into 54.xx% which I consider evidence of that powercreep. As T8 in T10 battles I win like 1-3 battles per quarter... Rigged RNG well, what really hit the fuse was flamus latest video where he shoots the broadside Yamato and calls him lucky, because he only ate three citadels in two salvos. With the RNG I get this result would be lucky with exactly the same salvos. The most common illustration of the issue is me running builds centered around main artillery, suddenly fighting the same ship with a secondary build, my shells disperse all around him, but he gets half the salvo on me each time. Not only is this double-standard retarded by itself, but it breaks the purpose of decisions which builds to run on ships. Why should I enhance main artillery precision, if a noob gets tighter grouping on the same ship despite of running a secondary or AA build, because of that mechanic? What is particulary bad are certain cruisers, in particular IJN. When I shoot them with AP I get overpens most of the time when they are angled or broadside, but when I play an IJN CA I get citadeled msot of the time broadside, angled, bow on or when kiting. This creates issues that feel like being a T5 ships, but facing the T10 instead of T7. Playing exactly the same way can give me recent results from super unicum down to orange. Don't be surprised about this game failing big time at eSports when such things are possible. I mean honestly, behind close doors eSports promoters are laughing their [edited]off when somebody suggests such games for their events.

It all depends. The most important thing is how far the salvo disperses. If you get most shells where you aim, it's a lot, but a circled drawn around the ship does nothing. The problem is that compared to high tiers midtier ships are usually more manouverable meaning movement does more. When reduced manouverability limits that factor there is even more random factor. It's the same design flaw as in WOT where things get dumbed down in higher tiers. This indirectly effects on how forgiving the game is for ships sailing in a straight line with too little angling. There is a reason why WG games more or less are considered unsuitable for eSports. According to the noob here it's all my fault that I don't get such salvos, when a salvo of mine draws a circle around the center of the enemy ship :) Let me guess... Somewhere around the secondaries, diagonally down into citadels so you probably need like 10-20m dispersion along that line. 10,x m/km dispersion, 14km. Probably not happening consistently and obviously hugely impacted by a players RNG... Or is it next to a turret, down into citadel for an even smaller target? Well, thanks for proving my points you retarded BBaby. All you do is through up the ad hominem that are common in cyber SJW political correctness. Since when is the one of the highest or even the highest long range AA aura combined with 5km base-range and most likely the range upgrade a bad fundament for manual AA? Sure the NC has that medium aura for AFT, but it has the fundament for the other option as well and the secondaries aren't the greatest. In particular for people like you who sail broadside at long range and claim people with tiny spreads are good players while people who get shotguns most of the time are supposed to be bad players in your disabled though process. Cheaters are 10 times more respectable than this combination of RNG apologism. It's not the others who are guilty for you failing everywhere when there are no *bonuses*. That is you. You literally could eat a bullet and would be smarter than before. CV obviously is intended as BB killer primary when not running air superiority and 90% of the CV results is matchup (in particular with the powercreeps of the 3 highest tiers when suddenly most lines get huge AA leaps out of the blue). You get screwed when being uptiered against good AAs and you farm the numbers when being toptier with no so great AAs. Pretty much like winrates. I needed to get mine to where it is as toptier and in +1 while having less than 10% in +2MM. Anyway, that is too much for your disabled head in general. Someone who is getting shotguns all the time can need more than 10 salvos to get the damage done with one luck almost spreadless salvo. Streaks of each are possible. If you would understand basic logics you would get that getting as few shotguns as possible is more important than aiming. Even at short ranges it can make the difference between multiple citadels and one pen combined with 2 overpens. Obviously someone like you defends such features, because that is all you have. Without that you would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight like you are tough guy online while hiding in mom's save basement. What you do is claiming you won the weightlifting contest where someone did 250kg, because you did 25kg and someone made you rated higher. Though, while reading your posts I see you as someone who even would snap his back under 25kg. You are not able to tell who is able to talk about balancing, because in your DGE head the FotM you are currently abusing is balanced either way. I don't even need to check your profile to know that there are things like a Conqueror conversion, but in the end you think to be smart while WG is laughing their asses of about you behind close door. Your claimed 10-14km already is where RNG can do a lot of damage. I see it happen regularily that some BB is getting streaks of 30-50m salvos while the other one is getting streaks of 90-120m salvos. Even with citadel out of the equation I have an easy time telling who hammers much more into the superstructure. In particular as you got up the tiers where battleships get less manouverable so that you can do less with movement. You prove all the statements I made and things I said about you big time. Everybody who is able to do well without helpers and able to logically think would have been convinced with the math demonstration of the AA auras already, but you keep acting as if it doesn't matter that the potencials of both AAs are so far apart that it's almost like apples and oranges. Just using this expression for 3rd persons, because you are overchallenged anyway. Less hits on the same strike from more kills before the drops, less torp drops means easier dodging to get more away. Even if both ships get hit with something, there is a difference between how much hits them. It's quite the same with you still denying the huge main artillery difference between various USN and KM ships at the same tier, f.e. 8 cannons (4 forward) less accurate, less punch, worse arc vs 9 cannons (6 forward), more accurate (to compensate for less velocity) and much more reliable in other parameters... The concealment is a deal as well and KM is generally bad in concealment. The secondaries sometimes are good and sometimes not. A lot of what they do is fire, but when there is support of a good firestarter it's not such a big deal anymore. The direct damage from secondaries doesn't compensate the main artillery unreliabilities. Main artillery is one of the biggest, if not the biggest factor... Ohh wait, camping in DD smoke is FotM so it's balanced in your mind anyway. The next big thing is that KMBBs obviously are intended to really go in, fight close, contest these caps based on hydro, survivability and armament. This exposes the ship to a bigger risc of crossfire than another one that waits with the savety gap. There were many complaints about the game being too passive. Ohh, surprise that WG builds something to get in there. Obviously irrelevant in your disabled mind that is about ignoring objective and dicerolling the damage. You straight forward ask for the USNBB getting the same brawling advantage in regards to citadel while maintaining the sniping advantage, rofl. The statement with torp damage when talking about damage from CV torps is someothing only you would pull off. For what do CV usually aim? I wouldn't be surprised about you doing frontal autodrops, but that is not the ideal drop... You are pretty damn scared of losing a FotM ships when RNBBlike designflaws on your FotM are being called out. Why so scared? Just accusing someone else of what your are doing only changes perceived reality in your mind. Who defends what most the most foolproof line before RNBB? Sail far away, CV-savety, extreme punch at range, injustified survivability buffs, with the range-upgrade you obviously are using ability to just snipe from outside the enemy range... You call the BB line with by far the weakest main artillery most overpowered muahahahahaha Main artillery performance is irrelevant in balancing, because noob said so HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA Well, someone with a brain and ability to get good at games sorta gets disgruntled from all the noob-bonus designs. The same designs that the people depending on them defend as if they are their lifes. I mean I wouldn't even have tested anything from WG, if they still would make good egoshooters, but instead they do clones of COD autoheal camping so I got to look for something else. Guess why good old shooters are superior: Someone like you gets zero'ed there consistently, but as soon as media spread gamer stereotypes all the developers started thinking it's more profitable to build games around the deficite stack of the likes of you. It depends on which ones. Secondary is another pretty doable example, but detonation flags get a littly bit itchy, if you want to use a lot of them. Such players are being enabled by the algorithm though. It's possible that one BB shoots a midrange target and constantly shotguns while another BB of the same type (or at least same cannons) can shoot that first BB from more than twice the range while constantly getting spreads at the width of the target ship. If such things aren't enabling such players than there is no enabling. Just look how they had their USN BB citadels lowered to be save against plunging fires, broadsiders combined with generally their sigmas and the function I wrote earlier. On top of this there is the excessive AA so that the alleged balancing-intend with a CV when someone like this camps in the corner doesn't happen.

So are you buying these flags then? I still see DDs getting detonated much more often than cruisers, but a lot of people seem to not buy detonation flags and use all of them on DDs. Ohhh, ooops seen it today... Enterprise AP detonating Gneisenau. Do you notice that you are proving me calling you a retard and other things. Why would that be? Long Range: 151@5km vs 133@4.5km, less range and less DPM Mid Range: 238@3.5km vs 103@3.5km, far over twice the DPM Short Range: 158@2km vs 138@2km, somewhat close, but the least important aura So far just worthless numbers, because an NC probably upgrades AA range while a Bismarck probably upgrades secondaries or MAYBE accuracy... Long Range: 151@6km vs 133@4.5km, OUCH Mid Range: 238@4.2km vs 103@3.5km, no comment needed Short Range: 158@2.4km vs 138@2km, clear So, now we have clear victories in all three auras. After that probability stuff gets interesting. Does the NC have AFT to get more mid range with the 30% targetting bonuses or focus on longrange or both? The Bismarck almost certainly has AFT. The Bismarck runs into limitations with the points, f.e. MS, AFT, BFT, SI... The NC could run CE, AFT, Vig, SI, Vig or CE, AFT, MAA (sacrifice Vig or SI) or CE, MAA, SI, Vig... Still, almost certainly the NC stays ahead clearly. So why is it like I claim and not like you claim? At tier 8 most CVs can get away with losing lots of planes. On the Bismarck they can just sacrifice a lot of planes to hurt the Bismarck (10% torp damage repairable) with getting a lot drops off before losing the plane compared to the NC killing a lot more before the drops. This is the difference. Bismarck has the turtleback and NC has the injustified citadel lowering so that difference can play out even more than before. In particular with NCs being more likely to camp far away than any other non-CV tier 8 which is the situation that should get punished by CV, if things were balanced. The situation would be different, if higher tier carriers would need to watch their planes like lower tier carriers do, but both ships can even meet higher tier carriers that make every bit of the extra-AA on NC matter and these carriers care even less about losing some planes after drops. It's quite the same like more cannons, more damage per cannon and better penetration properties adding up. This even remains, if misses due to less velocity and misses due to worse dispersion on the Bismarck compensate each other to some degree. One citadel, 10 overpens, but there still is that 10%/35% of the citadel are repairable and 50% of the overpen is repairable. One penetration is worth multiple overpens straight away. One lucky salvo on a hightier BB/CA/CL can be worth more than 10 unlucky salvos and you deny that such things are huge, in particular when occurring in streaks. The other big thing is that a cruisers can be denied in one lucky salvo, even without detonation or exposed broadside, full HP to nothing. Just saying... It's like all the anti-Trump snowflakes *looking at Dow Jones*... Anyway, it takes a mentally handicapped person to believe the denial of something this obvious. The list of mental malfunctions in your unfunded thesis is long. What is the best way to make the game forgiving for [edited]? Right, everything other than skill like rewarding FotM pickers and making RNG the fundament of everything. The other big thing is that caps win games, but all the noob formulas neglect cap and decap. The next one would be damage that gets repaired being rated like damage on a DD. Spotting and tanking obviously gets ignored, because most supporters of such ratings score low in these anyway. Hell, even WG's XP is doing better, but still both neglect a lot of things like in the previous paragraph. This would be like a doctor inspecting the broken bone with an x-ray after someone removed half of the x-ray, PS: There were people complaining about their patchday-converted Conqueror being nerfed compared to the last previews and their arguments did sound like you Typically multiple AP overpens are worth one AP pen and multiple AP pens are worth one AP citadel, but a missing shell obviously does nothing like a hit without effect. So as long as it can happen that the same cannons exchange a couple of salvos with one allways getting 2/3+ of the shells on target and the other one drawing circles around target there is an issue. What do you need to make aiming matter? Right, the shells going where you aim. As WG is fully of people claiming to be math professors and there are countless demonstrations of people dealing with math like a 6th grader... No need to continue. Lets bring up one for 8th or 9th graders. Calculate how far a round under ideal conditions would be off at 8000/12000/16000/20000 meters, if the aim was off one degree.

Can't it detonate him? I haven't seen a BB getting detonated this year, but maybe? Maybe he meant 33s after all planes have started, because at 33s the indie doesn't even have all squadrons in the air. Still there is odd stuff going on like exactly the same fighters with same enhancements strafing into each other, one squad losing one and the other squad losing three... Or regular fighting of the same planes outside of AA auras, f.e. Hiryu vs Hiryu and one fighter squad taking out the other with just losing one plane, fully enhanced fighters. The raw, naked theory says that both squads killing each other should be possible and common, but the victorious squad only having one plane left being the most common result in such situations. If you don't notice irregulaties while playing you got serious attention "restrictions". Holy crap you are proud to be a retarded noob. Bismarck AA with AFT and BFT still is inferior to the AA of an upgraded NC without commander bonuses. Though, your math is average by WG customer standards and a catastrophe by human standards like your skills that depend on dicerolls like some ill person who would die without medication.

I mean generally the heal is a thing too. There are many situations where cruisers without heal are big time screwed over in certain tiers, but that RN heal is just BS, especially combined with their citadel imbalance so they can camp broadside like most NC/Iowa/Monty players and have pretty reliable T-magic with very few exceptions. My bet would be that WG read some Stalin-admirations by Churchill and used that as motive for their design. You got another big one coming. If they maintain their biases VMF BBs potencially are going to be as absurd as RN BBs. RN BBs prove that there is no QA here... So well, this basically means getting close which results in your being focused apart while people such as EgAyzeR turn away, because some enemy got closer than 20km. Even on low ranges this can do a lot. I mean I have been in situations where Tirpitzes got the diceroll to dismember my DDs from full HP in one salvo at 12km and I have been in situations where at 8km the dispersion on various BBs has drawn a circle around the enemy. Another great one is exchanging shells with the OP-Monty as Hindenburg and the Monty consistently getting lower spread. The closest you can get to eliminating RNG would be certain carriers, but even then you got a considerable dependency on matchups. Even the lines notorious for bad AA get a massive AA leap at tier 9 and/or 10 and most tier 10 noobcruisers usually run defAA for the ones carrier each three games which most likely is tier 8 and has a bad time already instead of getting hydro for the multiple DDs that are in every match. Some people act as if two similar ships having a range duel with one getting most shells on the enemy and the other one having salvos draw circles with the enemy in the center is a matter of skill, because that is all the skill a lot of the WOW zombies who are now WG customers have. A salvo with multiple citadels can screw most people, but a few overpens are not such a big deal... Both can happen on exactly the same salvo. There are some 45-48% players who constantly shoot 50m spreads at 20km+ with BBs get two big salvos off and that is all they have while others need countless salvos to get to the same damage, because of much larger spreads. The other big thing is I used to check profiles when I was at the receiving end of insanely lucky RNG noob bonus salvos. Strangely that only happens with players below 50% who have most of their damage in one lucky salvo a game and strangely they seem to be immune to 24hour-winrates below 40% as well... Though another big thing about RNG... Tier 6 sorta nicely designed and pretty fun in +/-1, but completely screwed in +2. Tier 5 has such issues, but still tier 5 and 6 as bottom tiers have better chances of carrying +2MM than tier 8. This would mean that basically you would have to play tiers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 or very few ships or tier 10 with full platoons, because most likely you are not allowed to shoot your most dangerous enemies. Ohhh look, the typical random broadside camping NC lowbob has her feelings hurt. It already starts with Bismarck having worse AA numbers. Camparing the ranges of NC medium-AA with Bismarck range-AA is another big thing. Then there are noobs like you who increase the main battery range for your broadside sailing at high range and the ones who do it right and increase the AA while Bismarck needs to increase the secondary, because either way the main battery is just trash compared to Amagi/NC/tier8-Superzao. Based on the meta the ranged properties combined with camo are very, very big. Anyway, maybe by 2020 someone will succeed in explaining you why the 6 frontal cannons are a huge advantage... It's similar to WOT. Excessive RNG that obviously has double standards, biases towards certain ships that go as far as buffing obviously nerf-needy ships and vice versa, the maps... Though based on different games the open map actually is more campy here while the corridors are more campy in WOT. Wows has some improvements, but USN BB and RN BB obviously have their special bonuses like IS-3 getting buffed when it was one of the best or even the best tank in tier 8.