Tungstonid

Shush, don't give WG ideas.

Where do you get the "infinite" from? Just curious about a source because I am pretty sure I am able to spot ships behind smoke when my planes are on the other side or above/in the smoke. If smoke has an infinite heigth and planes can't spot through it, this should not be possible.

This is a situation where I'dsay it would be nice to have a warning by allies that they are about to retreat. BUT: If you always have an eye on the minimap and your allies, you should know when they try to run or get sunk and adapt accordingly. You might still not survive it but sometimes it is enough to delay the enemy, e.g. by kiting.

As far as I have experienced it until now no fighters of the squadron(s) you were fighting against are killed. It should also not be possible because usually they are too close to be in the area of effect.

Strafing out of a dogfight is a relatively new feature. Still the update when it was implemented was a while back. I, too, see it rarely used (which IMO is a good thing). And it can be OP on the Saipan if you can and know how to use it correctly because the Saipan is the only CV which doesn't lose a plane when doing it.

Just out of curiosity: Who is at fault when you are left against several opponents? You because you maneuvred yourself into this position and didn't pay attention to your surroundings or your team mates who recognized the disadvantageous position? Just want to know if you are someone who knows when he made a mistake or rather the typical holiday admiral everyone just has to follow or they are stupid. Sure, sometimes a hint by others that they will retreat is desirable. However, if you know that your ship is prone to be left behind because it has the speed of a tectonic plates and a turning circle as big the lunar orbit, yet you don't act accordingly, or if you rushed in without paying any attention to if you actually have backup then it ultimately is your fault. "Always, concentrate and never abandon" sounds nice and all but I will happenly abandon any team mate, even the top tier BB, if he stubbornly goes up against a clearly superior force without even trying to get out or make use of alternative ways. In the end, one, two or three survivors, and be it "only" the low tier CAs, are better than four or five sunken ships.

Try to use the tactical map by pressing "M". If it still doesn't work, install and execute WASD hacks.

I was just throwing out numbers. Of cause it can be adapted in a way that HE is more attractive. However, setting a multiplier as low as 0,005 (which would lead to a Yamato shell doing whooping 74 damage upon full penetration) is the same sledgehammer method some (most/all?) players accuse WG of using. I predict that this will do no good. Yes, a way to restore some balance is to let BBs do less damage to DDs if they use the wrong ammo and switiching ammo takes time. But it should not happen in a way that the ammo is rendered totally useless. A 460 mm main gun shell should not do less damage than any low calibre secondary shell. A salvo of a Yamato should not be worth less than 700 damage if you happen to be lucky enough to hit with every shell. The Yamato is just an example. Ultimately it won't do good to non-BB players either because they are affected indirectely by it. A proper BB player usually has AP loaded I'd say (except if they expect a well angled enemy). So if, by any chance, an enemy DD is spotted by an allied DD or radar CA, the BBs in range have the choice between switching ammo before shooting to do sufficient damage while the DD probably vanishes again or shooting what they have loaded but doing no damage. Result: The enemy got away and some pissed off DD or CA player will come to the forum claiming "Brawling BBs are all idiots because A) they use the wrong ammo or B) they didn't shoot the target I spotted". I can remember a change in the mindset of players when they decided that AP against DDs is good enough. But I can't recall if it was because of an early change in penetration mechanic or just because some youtubers and CCs propragated that switching ammo is not worth it. Maybe both. It definitively was somewhen during the first year after release/CBT and didn't happen just two months ago. Because right now DDs or CAs don't feel like a jack of all trades regarding who they can counter effectively. In the end every class should be able to do damage against every other class BUT there is a difference between doing damage and standing there saying "Hey, you are supposed to counter me but RNGesus accepted my virgin sacrifice so I'll just wreck you.".

Do they, though? I'd say they are influenced the heaviest by the biggest RNG in the game which are the players, in this case the target in particular. If you play a lot of DDs (as you said) you should know those games from time to time where every straight-sailing dummy suddenly changes course for no apparent reason as soon as you send them some love in form of metal fish. Once they hit, they have a higher damage potential than shells because they are not like a spin of a wheel of fortune with miss, bounce, ricochet, over-pen, penetration and (against non-DD targets) citadel hit but they do more or less consistent damage with small influences from torpedoe protections plus possible flooding. I give you that. That aside, in the end it seems to (partly) come down to the RNG of BBs. I agree, it is no fun to eat some random full penetrating shells in a DD because the BB got lucky. It is also no fun to see 9-12 shells going left and right from a DD which either feels like the following 30 seconds reload are not justified for what the damage counter showed or doing nothing at all. Just as frustrating as getting hit by a lucky shell but just as frequent (if not more frequent). Anyway, as I said above, to me a damage limiter sounds the most appealing. Either cap the highest possible damage against DDs by BB AP to 2000 HP or add something like a 0.5 multiplier for penetrating hits which will result in hits doing about 16,5% damage. Still a bit more than over-pens but not as devastating as it is now.

I don't know. One could argue that a CA can do the same amount of damage to a DD in the same amount of time as a BB, just in smaller steps. (1 salvo of a BB equals several salvoes of a CAs in terms of reload time). But there are still two problems with this: A) The DD has to be spotted constantly for the CA to do this damage. B) BBs should do less damage than a CA because they are not supposed to counter DDs. With all the braindead straight-sailing BBs out there I am also not sure which situation occurs more frequently. Usually the threat for any DD is the amount of incoming fire and not a single BB getting lucky in 1 of 10 games or so. I am not sure how to restore the balance. I think the most attractive solution I have heard so far was a decrease of damage for (penetrating) AP shells so that AP is less attractive to use against DDs than HE. BB captains will have to decide between switching ammo while the target could vanish during the process or they keep AP loaded and have to live with reduced damage against DDs. Changing the whole damage and penetration mechanic will need too much effort from WG. Touching the accuracy might also have some unforeseeable consequences although if it should get touched I'd go with an increase to give DD players with sufficient awareness a higher chance to dodge and not get hit by a stray shell.

Wrong. I never assumed he is wrong because of the fallacy. I merely wanted to show that he should argue differently because the bandwagon argument doesn't work. Maybe I should have made this clearer.

Read again. I never argued BB AP is fine. I just said that the test setup is flawed in a way that it doesn't give you enough insight in results under real battle conditions and this is all that matters in the end. Just like the test with the Shima would suggest that she is a total damage monster although she isn't as the server stats show and we all know.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

It still is only one side of the coin if you want to determine the tankiness of a ship or how much damage it can take. Just like taking out a Shima into a testing room and sinking one and a half "afk" Yamatos every two minutes doesn't give you any real insight into the damage potential of this ship under battle conditions.

What were the testing conditions? I guess the Khaba was just standing there and you got close enough to hit it? I don't really see that as a fitting test/ a test that says much about the DD's performance in randoms because usually Khabas are moving at 40+kn and maneuvring while staying at a comparably high distance to their target or enemies who want to shoot it which makes them very hard to hit effectively in the first place. And wasn't the Khaba the DD which was prone to high AP damage the most anyway because of it's armour?

Yes, both positions (high accuracy = CA killer XOR easier to dodge) are hypotheses. Both haven't been proven as far as I know. So you can't say, yet, what will be the result of such a change. I can understand the people saying that it will be a huge problem for CAs and it might be true, mainly under either (or both) of two conditions: A) the targeted CAs is straight-sailing and showing broadside (plus the BB player can actually aim). In this case you could argue that the CA deserves to be hit hard because he doesn't pay attention. B) close range even when the CA is maneuvring. Here the CA goes up against the class that is supposed to counter him at close range instead of choosing a more favourable stage. As soon as you have a longer distance (something between 12-15 km and max range I'd say) between the BB and the CA and the CA actually uses the A and D key from time to time, it will be easier to avoid salvoes with a closer spread. For example, see how hard it is to hit a moving/maneuvring target at max range with any USN DD, especially at higher tiers. They have high accuracy (compared to BBs anyway) but their shell travel time is simply so long that DDs, CAs and sometimes even BBs can avoid some shells, if not the whole salvo.

You were the low/mid tier ship only guy, weren't you? I wouldn't rely on not to have to grind tier VII+ ships. I doubt WG will give away a special captain with 15 skill points and two passive special captain skills to people with only low tier ships because usually only relatively new players don't have anything above tier VII. I won't even wonder if same of the tier restrictions of the later tasks are like "tier X only", just like Eraser_SK's screenshot shows. Maybe they start with tier VI+, but as I said, I highly doubt they will keep that for the entire campaign. But since it is supposed to be a permanent campaign you don't have to rush, depending on how fast you want that captain of cause. I also haven't seen any information how exactely the collection will work this time, since we have five sub-collections. Does every sub-collection has its own container type so you can concentrate on a specific sub-collection while solving the campaign or is there one container for the whole campaign? Had no possibility, yet, to have a look at the test server.

Or it wouldn't because higher accuracy means less stray shells and a smaller target area, hence CAs (who are not sailing like braindead zombies) can dogde more easily.

Another "long term goal" only for "experienced players"? Just like the Missouri?

From what the patch notes on the test server say it is supposed to be a permanent campaign, so at least in this case there is no "just one chance to get" argument. The First blood bonus IMO very much depends on the course of the battle. An additional charge for every consumable sounds nice but there is no guarantee that you can use it or have use for it. Two examples: A Zao manages to get First Blood but dies two minutes later for whatever reason. The bonus doesn't have any impact and can even considered to be wasted (from the point of view of the team). A Yamato manages to get the First Blood bonus but she already has five repair parties. How high is the chance that she can make good use of the additional one? Not only regarding the time limit of the battle, but also because of non-reparable damage that adds up during the battle. And you don't really need a ninth or tenth charge for the catapult plane. The Kraken bonus is more "interesting". Krakens are rare but if the bonus works as I understand it and can actually repair HP independently from light or critical damage, then it can be really nasty. Not to mention all the other bonuses. Getting a small bonus for doing good is ok, but this could be too much. And I agree that at some point balance could be impossible to restore with too many commanders. Maybe WG will limit themselves to only give one special commander per nation. I think this could work if they don't use their usual sledgehammer method.

What excately do you mean by "improbable fury distributed by the AI to some ships"? All Bots in Coop should follow the same AI programm which controls them according to their class (obviously CVs need to be controlled differently than DDs). Yes, equipment and captain skills of the ships might different but not the AI. FTFY As soon as someone lauches torpedoes into the (possible) way of a friendly, be it deliberately or not, he has to live with the consequences. You didn't see the allied DD coming from the left? --> You lack awareness. You launched torpedoes knwoing that you have an ally in the way? --> Obviously not the allies fault when he has to decide between taking (half damage of) your torpedoes or taking a broadside by enemy BBs. You launched your 6 km torpedoes at targets 20 km away and someone trolls you by driving into them? --> You gave him the possibility to do so and you potentially limited his area to maneuvre around in case of a long range engagement. When in doubt, don't launch torpedoes. I, too, am curious about the cheats you want to have detected. Maybe you can give one or two examples with screenshots and replays that without a doubt show those cheats? Because normally, cheats, as you know them from FPS like CoD or CS, are not possible in WoWS. Other than in CS, all calculations in WoWS are done on the game servers and include visibility, gun arcs, penetration, damage, torpedoe characteristics, fire chances etc. Trying to hack a server to cheat is not worth the effort. What you could have experienced are either game mechanics you don't understand or (unfair) mods which, besides one or two exceptions don't provide any advantage as long as the target doesn't fight and drive like some badly programmed bot or total newby.

OP, I think you have rushed through the tiers too fast. Not just by concentration on one or two lines of ships but also by (at least it seems that way) unlocking as much things as possible with free exp. Example: Normally 27 random battles in a North Carolina plus some in Coop are not enough to even unlock the first hull, let alone the Iowa. I'd advice you to take your time and spend some more battles at lower tiers to learn more about basic game mechanics which will also help you at higher tiers. The next thing (which also might have led to you rushing the tiers) is that you have over half your battles in BBs, mainly the RN premium BBs and the US BB line. I won't judge your for driving BBs itself, but if you want to have a better understanding of what other classes are capable of, you should start different lines. If you have problems with torpedoes, take torpedoe boats like the IJN DDs or USN DDs from tier 6 or 7 on. Play them, see what they actually can and can't, etc. It really helps the understanding of the game if you can put yourself in the position of the enemy and know what possibilities he has at hand and how you can counter them. If you know how to play BBs right then this game doesn't promote long range sniping at all. However, each BB lines plays a bit differently. USN BBs are very strong when played bow on, even at closer distances. IJN BBs start off with quite fast designs from tier 5 and in a way end up in the same playstyle as high tier USN BBs. If you want to have good secondaries, then this is one of the lines to go with. KM BBs are generally stronger at closer ranges and field a very good secondary artillery, too. In the end all that matters is whether you can use the strengths of your ship or not. And right now, no offence, I doubt you really can. RN BBs will be introduced with one of the next updates.

Not to mention that it is better to balance ships before you release ... ah, who am I kidding. Honestly, if they haven't change anything since the last time I heard of it, especially the consumables (choice between radar and Def AA), it might be better to wait some more.

I think the pros and cons of mines in randoms were discussed some days ago. Aside from that WG doesn't plan to introduce new ship classes, imagine what will happen to the gameplay, especially when the minelayers of one team get destroyed while the other team still have theirs. Mine field will be layed in choke points, effectively making some passages on already corridor-like maps useless. Objectives will be blocked by mine fields which makes it harder to get them back (troublesome if the game can go either way) and to pass throw them. One could also assume that it will promote a more passive meta because no one wants to run into a minefield. Then the whole balancing thing... If you make the mines too weak and too visible and maybe give every/most ships a countermeasure they are useless. If you make them too strong and you just have one or two ships per team that can counter them, they have the potential to be OP. All in all they will bring very inconsistent and probably unsatisfactory results. You can also add new "Idiot ally drove into my minefield and now I am pink" threads and "Idiot ally layed his mines directly in front of me/my way/the important objective" threads to the cons list. And trolls.