Tungstonid

And you will still have people who join the lobby, press "ready" and then go afk for whatever reason because "meh, I have 30 seconds countdown anyway".

Firstly: Yes, sometimes they can. Secondly: They are not supposed to in the first place on their own. Sounds like 9/10 you survive the salvo because overpens and lol-bounces and 1/10 you get heavily damaged/one-shoted. Correct me if I am wrong but last time I checked (which was 5 minutes ago) the Minotaur is the CA with the best concealment out of all tier X CAs. Minotaur vs Moskva: There is no way the Moskva can start firing from 23 km. Minotaur vs Des Moines: Minotaur does have the torpedoe advantage and as long as she doesn't show broadside it won't be an insta-kill for the Des Moines. Minotaur vs Hindenburg: Again, not an insta-kill as long as you don't show broadside alhough it will be a hard fight. I don't really get why you insist on 1 vs 1 scenarios anyway. This is a game where teams of 12 players each fight against each other. You will hardly find isolated 1 vs 1 scenarios. If you know you can't handle your opposing enemy then try to find some allies who can help you out.

Why do you think this is a trend of just the last few missions? Missions where you had to reach a certain number of ribbons were there before. Missions about damage by/hits with torpedoes were ALWAYS about shipborne ones only, except when the mission explicitely stated to use aerial torpedoes. IMO this isn't really new but in a way understandable since CVs are the class with the lowest population, hence CV-only missions, especially when part of a mission chain, will be a problem for the majority of players, while nearly everyone owns a DD or CA (or BB) with torpedoes. IMO combining aerial and shipborne torpedoe hits for a mission is not a solution either because from tier VI on, aerial torpedoe hits are much easier to achieve since you can drop them right next to your target minimizing the target's ability to evade them (by luck or actual skill). Btw: what about the missions that can ONLY be finished by using a CV, like mentioned hits with aerial torpedoes/bombs. Should they be removed, too? They are impossible to be completed with non-CV ships.

Two Brothers anyone? On a more serious note, I, too, see a problem in a potential increase in static gameplay because no one really likes swimming right into a mine field when they don't know excately where it is or if it blocks an objective and you can't counter it. Also the potential for trolling (even your own team) and making grave mistakes because someone layed it in the wrong place at the wrong time is just too high. We also would get a new kind of thread which will be like "I am pink because an ally swam right into my minefield I layed right in front of him, mimimi".

At least he acknowledged that not the ship is the problem but him and his inexperience with said ship. This is more than most other OPs do after creating such a topic.

I didn't call you liar but gave three possibilities why there are no Cleveland games on your account. and I think I have spotted the biggest problem you have. You played the Cleveland only in ranked games. No random battles, no Coop. You took a ship you didn't know at all (or from hear-say maybe), went straight into the most competitive mode we have right now and then you complain that it is a bad ship although it clearly is not?

Neither the WOWS website nor Warships.Today shows any Cleveland battles on the account you are posting with. The closest you got to the Cleveland are some hundred games in the Phoenix. So there are three possibilities: A) You are lying and you never played the Cleveland, making a fuzz for whatever reason. B) Both the WG website and Warships.Today didn't update your data which is unlikely because your stats are not hidden and you played the Clevelands "for weeks" giving both websites enough time. C) The account on which you played the Cleveland is not the one you are posting with. So which is it.

Asking for constructive feedback and help is ok. Ranting is not which is what you did in your first post. You reap what you sow. Not to mention that the "I have a life" argument is so 2000 and irrelevant. He might have unlocked it today and the website didn't update, yet.

Unless you have unlocked the Cleveland and her modules with free exp, it is still stock. This might be reason for your problems. Else, have some more facts: The Cleveland doesn't need torpedoes nor smoke. Why do you even think that you make more damage with either, if you die before getting an enemy into shooting distance? She is not a BB with a lot of armor but comes with better mobility. You say she is slow? I say she is faster than every BB on that tier: 32,5 kn vs. 21 kn (New Mexico), 25 kn (Bayern), 23,5 kn (Warspite), 29,5 kn (Dunkerque), 24,5 kn (Fuso) and 26,5 kn (Mutsu). If you want to play something faster and more mobile, go for DDs. She also features better armour than most other cruisers on that tier. Tomahawks usable by ships were developed in the 1970s. This game (mostly) features ships of the era of WW2 or from soon after. That's why you don't find weapons like cruise missiles in WoWS. Not that BBs need them anyway.

Fixed that for you.

RDF is basically non-existent. You can maybe find it in one out of 100 games and it seems to have no significant influence. Which, btw, was something a lot of people suspected. So much to your "RDF debacle". Else, as Tiger313 mentioned, read the forum a bit. I hasn't really changed over the last months I think. Although I'd take the "BBs OP" threads with a grain of salt because BBs aren't necessarily OP but are very RNG dependant, very popular and have an unhealthy high population which makes it hard for CAs. Same goes for the "CVs OP" threads. They are not OP, well, maybe besides the high tier ones. It is just the same as with arty in WoT: Some players dislike the whole concept, can't handle them on the battlefield or have no experience with them themselves, therefore they must be OP. For every threads about how OP CVs are you get one about how UP they are.

Well, to be fair, what you see as fire chance is rarely what you really get because there are a lot of situational and hidden factors influencing the outbreak of a fire as well. But yeah, usually it is the concentrated HE spam of several ships which is a real problem, especially for BBs. But that is what you call teamwork, I guess.

Can't quote my quote with your remarks, therefore: I guess we agree to disagree on the matter of "dancing between shells like ninja in the rain" thing. I don't think it works, you think it does but there is no way to prove it objectively. It is also not about skills like Incoming Fire Alert because paying attention to them and making an evasive maneuvre because of them might still lead to you sailing into a stray shell (as my not so accurate sketch showed). You not only punish BB players but CA and DD players alike with your change. Although I give you that CAs and DDs usually are faster at putting out fires while (not so nooby) BBs tend to keep a fire burning and heal instead. And yes, it is a punishment because you punish the group of players who are up front doing the dirty work and NOT the ones camping 15 km behind the frontlines. How often have you burned down a BB with any CA at 20+ km? Oh yeah right. You can't even reach them unless they messed up anyway and let their team die so you can get close enough. All the sigma value does is determining how many shells are how close to the centre of the ellipse.

Again, what makes you think that only the dispersion should/will be changed. A change of the size of the ellipse while keeping the proportions would be more logical. And the rest of my points are still not invalid.

This was a concept sketch at best. So it is not 100% accurate. Also, what makes you think that WG won't also change the height of the ellipse? The circles themselves might be incorrect but the result would be the same. And just because my sketch is not 100% correct, doesn't mean all the other points are invalid.

Warning, awesome paint skills incoming: What you see is what will happen if you increase the dispersion of BBs - be it by fire or any other means like a general nerf. The CA (or any other ship) is coming from the right, get's shot at and either takes evasive actions or not. The green circle shows the impact of the shells with normal dispersion, while the red circle shows increased dispersion. So while the evading ship won't get hit by the normal salvo, the salvo with increased dispersion gives a higher chance of hitting him. For the straight sailing CA it in a way has the opposite effect because the chances that he will get hit by more shells decreases. Your proposal is - at least in my opinion - not a solution for anything related to correct the balance between BBs and CAs. And please don't come with up with things like "but now you can dodge every shell because the distance between them is bigger". It might work in some cases but no player has time to keep an eye on every stray shell that is thrown at him or her. Not to mention that some CAs lack the mobility to react to shells when they already maneuvre. Also, try to think like one of the camping BBs for a second. You think they now decide to get closer because the accuracy is lower? I'd say they will think: "Well, if I get closer they can set fires on my ship and I won't hit anything. Therefore I'll stay at the back." All you punish are BB players (or EVERY player for that matter since it is supposed to be a global change) who actually go to the front because they have to contantly deal with accuracy penalties.

I think I spotted your problem. What did or did not happen IRL has nothing to do with what does or does not happen ingame. If you want WoWS to be realistic you should limit your actions to looking at your ships in the port. If WG wants BBs to be the main counter to CAs and balances the game accordingly (if you want to call it that way) then either play along or quit. Or you play as you like and don't shoot at CAs with your BB so you won't get any exp and credits from that.

I'd disagree. The point of the game, besides having fun, is to win by all means necessary. Hunting down all enemy ships is a valid tactic as well as capping/winning by points. Both ways are equally valid and it is up to the players how they want to do it according to the course of the battle. Addtionally you have battles where the winning team doesn't have the choice because the enemies just die too fast.

Well, from OP's view point this might be true. He was already dead and probably wanted to go to the next match asap, maybe even with the same ship. However, the remaining players decided to chase the last DD for the kill/damage and some more experience, I'd say. I agree that it might have been unnecessary but that's what they decided to do. We don't know what the exact course of the battle was, though, so judging on the basis of a screenshot of the last seconds is a bit hard.

I'd advice to start a line of every class up to, let's say, tier V so you can get a first impression what the classes have to offer in general and what playstyle suits you. On this basis you can specialize if you want or stay with different lines. However, ships of the same class can play very differently. Maybe it is better if you try some ships first, find your preferred playstyle and then ask what ships you should try.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the 0 MM (aka getting in a match of their respective tier) the "top tier domination" you want to prevent? So in the end you ask for a general +1 MM for CVs which doesn't really (or rarely) work for tier X CVs. Other CVs of lower tiers might also have problems if the battle is filled with more higher tiered ships. Although I agree that things like a Hiryu strike setup vs. a New York sucks. If I am not imstaken Defensive Fire already induces panic in all squads in range. So this is nothing to discuss about. I am not so sure about the Manual Focus. It kind of looks appealing but (and I know this game is suipposed to be balanced for solo players) if you have a division or even a group of ships and the players know about the mechanic they still can panic a whole strike setup without even activating Defensive Fire which, if you go a stop further, makes AA skilled/equipped CAs obsolet in this matter. They will still shoot down more planes than other ships but you don't need them anymore to make a strike more difficult/less accurate. I also don't think that CVs need an (indirect) nerf. Well, maybe some high tier ones and the aforementioned situation with the New York and the Hiryu as an example should get a look at. But all in all it is not really necessary.

First of all, no BB does 22k damage, let alone 26k damage, with a single shell. You must have been hit multiple times. Secondly, you tried a tier IV BB and you managed to do 16k damage with two shells? so what? Is that supposed to be evidence for BBs being op? Come back with some hundred games in BBs over different tiers and tell us how accurate and devasting they are on a regular basis. And for those who just read what they want to read: This point is not about the possibility of hard hits by BBs themselves but about "I rolled two dice, got snake eyes, hence the dice must be biased" kind of "reasoning". BBs are meant to counter CAs, therefore they should be able to hit hard against them. As it is now the problem rather is the number of BBs per match compared to CAs (and sometimes DDs, depending on the tier) than their supposed damage potential. As I said: Do some more games in BBs (also at higher tiers) if you think they are so good reliable and I assure you that it takes more than staying 20 km away and pressing the left mouse button to do good in them and to achieve somewhat consistent results. Regarding your options: 1) As far as I know this is in some way already implemented but other might be able to tell you more about it. But do you really want this? An increase of the dispersion leads to a higher possibility for BBs to hit evading targets with stray shells. 2) The scale of the ships themselves should be ok. But the scale of the ships compared to the distances on the maps don't fit. However, fxing this doesn't really solve your problem. Lightly amoured ships don't necessarily rely on a signifantly smaller silhouette but also on enhanced maneuvrebility. If you think that the scales of two ships don't fit, go look them up. Or post the ships here. 3) Why? See point 1) 5) What do you propose? RN CAs are kind of the glass canons of the game. They can bring very good damage over time but also take much damage. Well, at least in the case that RNGs doesn't show you the middle finger makes every shell magically overpen.

What exactely do you mean? The campaigns shall provide an increasing level of difficulty and - as Profilus mentioned - either motivate players to progress or make sure that players with only tier III ships can't suddenly sail a tier VI premium.

If the wiki is correct then Science of Victory can be done with at least tier V ships or even lower tiers for the first few missions. Honorable Service is (or should be) a campaign for more experienced players. The restriction for high tiers probably shall prevent players with a higher skill level to complete some of the tasks in lower tier battles, like getting a Kraken, Clear Sky, etc.

Do you drive a different Pensacola than I did? I battled in the Pensacola back in the days when she had her high detectability and one thing she could definitvely do was to evade shots just because (at least it felt this way to me) she could turn on the spot. The guns aren't bad either. Survivability was always bad, though. In the meantime she got buffed so I don't see why she should be worse compared to before. Also, why making two threads about the same topics within a short time?