xxNihilanxx

I found myself on the same team as @GarrusBrutus tonight but unfortunately it was one of those nights where I just could not buy a win if I tried. I was in my T61 and he in his Maas, iirc, but there was no salvaging the team we were on. They all managed to die so quickly it was unbelievable. Sadly mate, the team we found ourselves on was not the worst I have had tonight. At least our match didn't see a Colorado lose a point blank duel with a New Mex because the Colo was shooting HE at the New Mex's broadside at 2km (I kid you not). Was good to see you, fella, maybe next time things will go somewhat better.

Excuse me, sir, but this discussion is centred around overreaction and rampant hyperbole - I'd thank you to not bog it down with such inane trivialities as facts and details.

Well that may be the case but who are we to judge? There is beauty to be found in many forms. PS. Now I've pointed it out you will never be able to unsee it

Now your argument is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. So when we buy a premium ship we do so without expecting to be able to actually play it? Don't talk wet. This is nothing to do with wanting to keep a wallet advantage, I have told you that much repeatedly but you just choose to ignore it as it doesn't suit your agenda. I am trying to explain to you that it is the player behind the ship and not the ship itself that determines success rate. I cannot put it any clearer. Nowhere in that statement does the idea of "wallet advantage" come into play. To give you (yet) another example, let us assume that WG did exclude premiums, so no Belfasts at T7 ranked. What then of the Fiji, for example? We all have access to that ship and being the tech-tree equivalent to the Belfast forms the logical comparison. You have a total of 81 battles played in yours (so enough for a representative sample) and have a 46.9% WR, an average damage of 22,008.54, a survival rate of 11% and a KDR of 0.58 I have a total of 126 played in mine (also a representative sample) and have a 61.9%WR, an average damage of 57,076.16, a survival rate of 57% and a KDR of 3.31 Should I therefore be excluded from playing the Fiji in T7 ranked so that you don't feel like you are disadvantaged in any way? That would be patently nonsensical. I repeat for you one last time - it is the player that determines the success rate not the ship.

And that, I believe, is the crux of the issue. You had the opportunity to buy the Belfast when she was on sale but didn't and now, because you don't have one, you feel that nobody should be allowed to use them in ranked. Your argument is based on self-centred, churlishness and not on logic and reason which is why it cannot ever be correct. You say that classifying players based on their wallet would be the death of the game but you are wrong. Lack of financial support would be the death of the game and so the last thing the devs want to do is alienate their financial supporters, that would kill the game quicker than anything. Stop being so envious and resentful. Put your efforts, instead, into improving at the game as a whole and then you won't feel the need to try to exclude ships that you struggle to deal with. I'll tell you again, it's not the ships that win the game, it's the players.

@Fat_Maniac Completely off topic, mate, but I have been meaning to say this for some time and seeing your post just reminded me again. Your logo banner - I finally worked out that it is an image of a heart-shaped oak tree but, for the life of me, I can only ever see it as a chubby lady in frilly knickers bending away from the camera.

I like to play my premiums because I enjoy playing them, I want to get value for money from my purchase and the increased credit return helps me to be able to afford the tech-tree ships I unlock as I unlock them. What is so hard to understand about that? Let us assume for a moment that premiums were excluded from ranked, well not all tech-tree ships are equal in power either so players will pick the most powerful tech-tree ships that they have access to. Not all players have access to all tech-tree ships yet so the situation would be exactly the same. Your proposal solves nothing other than to alienate certain paying customers. Contrary to what you may think, I am not here to "bash your stats" but merely to point out the glaring flaws in your argument.

I think you may be missing my point somewhat. With regards to your Cesare you are sitting at a 50.81% WR in her which is perfectly in keeping with your 50.88% overall WR. If she were OP enough to exclude from certain game modes then surely your WR in her would be significantly higher than your overall WR? It isn't and that is precisely my point. It is the player and not the ship that determines the chance of victory in any given match. Some premium ships in the T5-T8 range may well be stronger than their tech-tree counterparts but even this will not result in the imbalance that you describe. Why? Because over the course of any ranked season you are statistically likely to have just as many on the green team as you face on the red team. Do you not see this? Over a large number of battles their appearance will even out. Now given this overall statistical equality of representation your ultimate success, or lack thereof, will come down purely to the skill of the players involved and not, as you seem to insist, to the inclusion of premium ships.

I know there are other ways to support the game but this does not, in any way, offset the issue that having premium ships excluded would cause. When they were purchased, nowhere did it say that these ships would be "invalid for certain game modes", to invalidate them at a later date would be a huge breach of trust. Buying the occasional ship does indeed help to slightly boost the economy for the devs but I was referring to those of us who have consistently bought ships on regular basis (alongside premium time, camos and doubloons). While it is true that my cursory glance at your ships may have missed a couple of bought premiums, compare that to the ship list of myself and others and you will see that we have made considerable purchases thus keeping the game running consistently rather than sporadically. To exclude us would be a serious kick in the teeth. Supposedly OP ships aren't what determine the success or failure of any given team, it is the players not the ships that contribute to the victory. Buying a Belfast, for example, won't guarantee you success, as you have discovered with the Cesare, you still need to be a decent player to perform well in it. Nobody here would argue that ships like the Yubari, De Grasse, or Duca D'Aosta, for example, are OP in any way and yet, if you look at my WR in these ships you will note that they are comparable (if not higher) to my Belfast WR. It is so easy for so many to blame supposedly OP ships for their failings but these people are just looking for a way to fell less bad about themselves. You come across as a prime example, if I am being honest.

Some of us have supported the game over the years with some, not insignificant, money investments but in your eyes those investments should be excluded from parts of the game on the say-so of freeloaders who have played for free for the most part? That makes no sense whatsoever. For a start it would eat into WG's potential revenue as some people, myself included, would be less likely to buy further premiums knowing that they would be excluded from significant parts of the game. A quick look at your ships shows me that you have exactly one payed-for ship in your port, a (rather badly played) Giulio Cesare. So you would ask for WG to make restrictions that, for the most part, would leave you totally unaffected but would greatly affect the parts of the playerbase who have actually kept this game going with their considerable financial support? Does that not strike you as a little selfish on your part? Is it within your capabilities, do you think, to formulate an argument based on logic and reason rather than ineptitude and envy?

This will not help new players as much as it might appear. Sure they will find it easier to grind to the mid-tiers but they will have far lower skilled captains on those lines than they may otherwise have had. Can you imagine how they will find trying to play mid-tier DDs, for example, without Concealment Expert? Unless WG also reduce the XP requirements for each successive captain point this will be a double-edged sword.

As others have said, 17 battles is just too small a sample size to worry about at the moment. One short streak of terrible teams can give you the results you are seeing. Stick with it and get a few more games under your belt with her and if you are still suffering after 40-50 games or so come back and we can see if we can give you any helpful advice. As a total contrast to your experience I have played 11 games in mine so far and won 10 of them but, trust me, I do not expect to maintain this 91% WR in her as my game count goes up. It's just the way streaks work.

Or you might have witnessed someone just derp out and forget to hit "Enter" before typing something with the letter T in it. I'm guessing here, of course, cos I have never done something so silly on a regular basis. Definitely not. Nope. No way.

I am sorry but the bolded part is simply so far from the truth that it is laughable. Yes it may be incredibly difficult to citadel German BBs but to say they have been immune to damage is nonsense. German BBs are the BBs that are the easiest to consistently damage, so much so that they are essentially my favourite ships to shoot at. Side on they take huge chunks of damage, assuming you know where to aim and if angled they have such huge superstructures that they eat HE damage like crazy. On topic, as has already been stated, AP bombs were a terrible idea. Huge damage to some ships and barely anything to others is not a good model, in my opinion. The fact that they are particularly effective against certain cruisers when they were introduced to be anti-BB weapons only serves to make things worse.

It's the same theoretical DPM but with those nice Soviet rail guns they tended to get more actual hits per salvo - at least that was my experience. Maybe if I had my torps off CD I could have forced him to evade more and thus forced his poorer turret traverse to become an issue but he knew I had already launched so was able to straightline. Also he can just open the range and put the engagement in his favour. I got him later on when he was focused on shooting at someone else but I had to break off from the initial engagement as he was outdamaging me. I suppose it could have been my lack of experience with the ship but he seemed to be chunking me quite hard with each shot

Only played a couple of games in her so far and they weren't particularly great results but that is largely due to lacking the opportunity to get decent torp hits more than anything else. The torp reload is good, as we all know, but as I suspected she gets totally crapped on by ships like the Fushun if you get into a gun fight. I think the notion of it being "totally OP" and "as broken as Belfast and Saipan" is just typical, CC-induced hysteria. Of course that is based on just a couple of games so my opinion could change given more time to experiment.

Was an easy win for us and I wouldn't say you made a fool of yourself at all, especially if you were playing a DD without CE. Was nice to see you in game, mate.

Ah, the famed CV rework. The expansion of the sun may well have destroyed all life on earth before then, though.

Yup, guilty as charged. I did indeed click "First new post", read a couple of posts and then jump in with a reply without realising there was another page. Totally my bad. What's worse is that it really bugs me when I see others do the same. Ah well, no real harm done, I guess.

Aye but this is WG we are talking about, there's every chance that those changes would be to buff it.

Your idea, as I understand it, is to revert to repair bills based on damage received and adjust the rewards elsewhere to bring credit earnings in line with what they are now. This would completely undermine the reason for the change as (even more) players would go back to trying everything in their power to preserve their health pool. BBs could still hit other ships and cause damage from the back line to ships that pushed for the objectives so they would earn credits that way but they would also feel that they could improve their income by not taking damage in return I am sorry but it doesn't make anywhere near as much sense as you seem to be convinced it does.

We could probably discuss this at some great length but that would be dragging this thread considerably off-topic and is therefore a little unfair of us. Maybe a subject for a different thread?

I feel you and I may have different notions of what constitutes OP. Was the Minekaze OP pre-nerf? I would say that it wasn't. It was strong, sure, but far from OP. It had great stealth and great torps but terrible guns and mediocre speed. It was difficult for newer BB players to deal with but that just makes for part of the learning experience. If the Kami's weren't OP before before then they cannot possibly be now just because ONE ship got nerfed. They are exactly the same as they ever were, they have not been buffed in any way. If WG were to revert the Mine nerf then, according to your argument, they would cease to be OP once more - this makes no sense to me. A ship is either inherently OP or it isn't. In the case of the Kami's they are as Powerful as the Minekaze used to be but that was never Over Powered.

Repair costs based on the amount of damage taken were ditched years ago in favour of a flat service cost as some players were using it as an excuse to sit at the back of the map avoiding damage so as to lower their post-game bill. Edit: Damn you @hgbn_dk, you are just too quick on the draw.

Sorry for this but aren't all games "play to win"?