Khul

Fair enough mate, thank you for that.

& this is because stupids cannot deal with the asymetrical nature of naval warfare ("OMG UNFAIR ONE-SHOT NOOOOOOOOOO") & therefore IJN cruisers, as torpedo-armed vessels, probably come in for a bigger proportion of whines & shrieking than their non-torpedo counterparts. Obviously, also why DDs have to be nerfed into the ground, directly & indirectly. This is an observation solely culled from these forums, BTW. Hence the "thinking" behind mass increased rudder shift times & will lead (he says, putting his dukkering rags on & gazing into his crystal ball) to something else, something which is only being rumoured on Youtube but I swear I can see them doing if they haven't already done it yet: the change of the current (at least vaguely equivalent to something not too divorced from reality) massive alpha strike of citadel hits to "consistent point HP damage" no matter where you hit. Think how WG now regards the HE mechanic as "sufficient" & "not a problem". They don't want this to be a naval game, basically. Or they've worked out that market research tells them that something that looks like a naval game that has no relation to anything vaguely nautical at all apart from the visuals will earn more money. Just think how many people shriek when you score citadels & sink them? This too will have to go, IMO, as WG continues down this road, at which stage this game will become Doom with a watery re-skin & not worth bothering with at all.

The OP is right on a few points. Battleships should be huge & cumbersome with a massive alpha strike, otherwise they are not battleships, or even a representation of same. The way the devs keep pandering to the stupidest, most vocal element of the player-base will turn this into something that's barely a naval game at all. It's heading to be a late-period WOT-clone, except with the added stupidity of everything moving like cyber-ninja robot squirrels because there is no terrain to hide behind. Grim days ahead.

http://gamemodels3d.com/worldofwarships/vehicles/japan EDIT: LOL Ninja'd.

Ah, right. Didn't know that mate. I can only suggest "wait & see" as the answer. Did you go on the test server? Maybe try it there...? (Wanders off to befriend someone with a Tier 5 carrier so my Kongo doesn't meet tier 8s...)

I would assume that in your example the division gets to wait in the queue until there is a game available with either 1 or 3 tier 4 carriers waiting (to make it 1 tier 4 CV vs 1 tier 4 CV or 2 tier 4 CVs vs 2 tier 4 CVs). That is based purely on logic of the carrier matchmaking. As to the whys & wherefores of "Can I game the new MM to get a slightly less risky chance for my battleship" (which is why I assume you have asked, otherwise you'd just be like "ah well they're both tier 4, that seems reasonable"), I have literally no idea, & I imagine no-one else would actually be able to tell you anything about those odds with any degree of accuracy but the developers (who aren't exactly famous for sharing stuff about any of the intricacies of the game mechanics). EDIT: I am assuming CV matchmaking is literally ship-for-ship after the new patch. EDIT 2: Also, at the moment a Langley can see up to a tier 6, can't it? I'm sure I've seen Langley's face Clevelands & Independences (I don't really sail CVs so cannot be sure, apologies if I'm wrong).

Thank you, Flavio.

NVM

Without wishing to get into the interminable "he said/she said" of this topic again, can someone who knows please tell me if WG has released a list of "approved" mods, or indicated how long people will have to wait to get mods approved? If this information was somewhere & freely available then I'm sure it'd calm things down, because then to the mod-wanting faction WG could just say "You'll have to play without skins" (or whatever) "for a month, then we'll be open to your mod suggestions & that'll take another XXX amount of time before we make a decision & then it'll be another YYY amount of time before it's implemented". Surely that's better than just letting the forum populace have at each other like dogs over a rag over this, again & again & again... (Though, to be fair to WG, I'm quite certain that if they said "It'll be five minutes" or "It'll be a year" some people around would still throw the toys out of the pram...)

What does "tier 8-10 CVs raining hell on you..." have to do with a discussion about how changes to close-range BB gun dispersion affect play balance? I'm not starting, I just don't follow what you're trying to get at.

Awesome job mate. It is indicative of : A) just how bad I am that I was so mind-boggled & unjustifiably proud that I'd got six & B) that the general server populace is so terribad inexperienced that my own meagre performance led to walls of text bemoaning my "l33t haxx0ring skillz". I can only imagine what you had to put up with after that round...

I bloody well do. Six, if anyone's counting, which I am. But then again, I am a scrub. So. PS: This was last night, & my second-best ever game in a Kongo (favourable matchmaking FTW). I got called a hacker/aimbot user/C*** by every single ship I sank (all BBs). I could not decide if I was more pleased by having a (relatively) good round or because of the butthurt. But I PM'd the most vociferous dude later, & explained that no I do not have an aimbot, I have just learned a tiny bit about the game. I talked his ear off, we platooned, & in our last game together (of three) he citadelled & sank a Cleveland with his South Carolina. I got a New York later the same game, in my Arkansas Beta. I have no intention of ever breeding, but my pride was likely much the same as someone who's spawned, after said spawn grows up & stops eating their own poo or whatever it is that children do that seems to entertain adults so.

I am a bad BB player, but I must admit one-shotting a full-health Atlanta with my Kongo's opening salvo (it was a really good guess!) is one of my most cherished memories of WOWS thus far. It also led to a huuuuge amount of rage from the enemy player, which was hilarious.

Just an aside, I would hate this. The game at least tries (when in a BB) to show an approximation of driving a giant leviathan equipped with mighty only-just-past-steampunk cannons that, though unwieldy & unreliable, are capable of levelling a fellow battleship with one (admittedly, lucky) shot. Making this, I dunno, Halo or Doom or something, where you have to throw 23,344 shells on to target to get a kill & your accuracy is laser-like, would be... It wouldn't be a naval game with anything like battleships, IMO. & it'd stop me playing, end of.

There's that "pumping efficiency" again. I would like to assure everyone that Ms. Khul is extremely satisfied with my "pumping efficiency", thank you very much, & requests that no-one nerfs it.

Mutsuki torpedo reload buffed??!?!?!?! Minekaze/Mutsuki gun traverse buff??!?!?! Yubari AA consumable?!?!?!? Furutaka with , uh, "now faster shifts and wheel spins menacingly toward the enemy and a rapid-moving tower GC and updated torpedo tubes. By the way, the same set of torpedo destroyer Mutsuki in the maximum configuration, which creates a good opportunity to save on pumping"??!?!?! If that means the Furutaka gets the Mutsuki's 10km torps... ROOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRR. & yeah, basically any change to the matchmaking for CVs (forcing team equality RE: CVs as it were) might have to go down as "BESTEST THING EVAAAH!" The amount of whine/debate surrounding CV inequality is phenomenal, this has been something people have been begging for since OBT. Also, I might add a signature saying "Creates a good opportunity to save on pumping", because well, that might be the best sentence in the whole of the English language. EDITED: Though, yeah the Minekaze going to 7km torps with 6.9km detectability is... Mental. Absolutely mental. Not to mention they're doing the same thing to the Mutsuki's detectability, that well-known over-performing game-winning stallion of a ship. Sigh. WG giveth, & WG taketh away.

Awesomesauce mate, thank you for bringing the news!

I think--technically speaking--there is only one "RNG bat", which determines where you hit. There is then a fixed series of formulas to ascertain damage: From http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/41728-dealing-damage-in-wows/ BTW, I would say that 68K in a Myogi is... Rather good, actually. Not like "OMG NURF IT!!" good, but that's like nearly twice my average damage in the thing & (he says, going to look it up) actually 8k more than I ever managed in it. I am pish though. & only played 20-odd games in it. But seriously, good job!

Well, it's more the underlying assumptions that I have a problem with, TBH. That & the 33,245 threads posted about "TORPS OP PLZ NURF" since the start of OBT. & the fact that it's my day off, & I have a hangover, & whilst I can surf the interweb whilst defragging my hard drive I can't play ships. So. You know.

I wish to point out at this juncture that I am, it appears, quite happy to be hypocritical when it comes to stuff like this (see my overly-dismissive, prissy rant in the latest "TORPZ R OP, DO FULL DMG ALL TIME, OMWTFG PLS NURF WG" thread)... & therefore by my own actions I hope it's obvious that I haven't really got a problem with stuff like that. But I do like to point such things out.

Fair enough mate, but when one's only recourse appears to be "It'd allow me to win forum arguments" I for one can see why they don't do it!

Factually, totally & utterly wrong. The thread from where this information was taken: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/41728-dealing-damage-in-wows/ It's a good read. OP, I suggest you spend some time with it, it might disabuse you of a few wrong-headed notions you have, & perhaps you could learn something rather than spreading disinformation & bull**** to uninformed players.

Well, quite, but just 'cos we cannot see them it does not immediately follow that WG does not have all that information to hand or that they don't take note of them as metrics for balancing, & just doesn't want anyone peeking under the bonnet, as it were. The reason might be so simple as that they may not wish to put up with a bunch of loons obsessive-compulsives amateur self-declared experts mining such information from a tiny percentage of accounts & then loudly going on forums & trumpeting to all & sundry about "WAAAAAAAH WG Y U NO BALLANSSE PROPPERLLLY!!?!?!? I HAS 0.0075% LESS DMG IN IJN CRUISERS BETWEEN TIERS 5-7 THAN EXPECTED VALUEZ!! PLS BUFF!!!" or something. After all, we need to play games for them to ascertain balance; we're not actually the people who decide balance (as much as sometimes I'd like to). I don't really see why we need to know such esoteric things, myself, but YMMV.

IIRC "Other means" includes fire, flooding & ramming kills. As someone who shall remain nameless was outed on the forum the other day for having a minus value to their "Other kills..." score I can only presume that one's team-kills negatively affect that number (but I'm not willing to take note of my "Other kills..." value then go in-game & deliberately TK someone, just to try it out).