Pikkozoikum

Hmm, I think this game is not much more frustrating than most Team-PvP games. If I compare that with similar games like War Thunder, than it is even less frustrating. I mean in War Thunder for example the Naval battles, using there a planes is always suicidal, even a motorboat with one or two MGs are deadly. That's way more frustrating game design xD Playing both games always shows me, what Warships does better and worse.

Well, that's your personal opinion, but to make the discussion viable for you: Imagine we are pre-0.8.0 with RTS CVs and the Haku would have J5N TBs and DBs.

As you say, the intended role. J5Ns role -> intercepting, starts from airfields, not CVs. Bombload 250k Their role is not Torpedobombing, or dropping 800 kg bombs on ships. so it doesn't fit the intended role? It's like giving a DD the role of a BB. We use the model of Harugumo, but gets guns like Yamato Also I think the J5N couldn't even land on a CV, the role is not to land on CVs, but on airfields.

So muss es aussehen! :D

Eine Frage zu Semi AP so wie ich das sehe, kommt mir SAP eher vor wie eine andere Version von HE, und nicht wie eine Semi-AP Granate. Eine SAP Granate hat weniger Durchschlag, aber mehr Sprengmittel, daher sollte sie eigentlich exakt wie eine AP Granate funktionieren, nur mit ein bisschen weniger Pen. Aber in diesem Spiel scheint sie wie eine HE Garante so wirken- daher Frage ich mich, hat die SAP in diesem Spiel auch wirklich ne "time-fuse"? Oder detoniert sie bei Kontakt wie bei HE mit mehr mm Pen.

Actually that should have a high priority. A good graphic and good immersion is important for a game. Just go with the first Battlefield 5 videos, when people notice, when a planes passes them. They all say, that it has a great and realistic immersion. If a game creates a good immersion, then a player is more statisfied and likes a game more. A player who appreaciates that, will also spent more money in such a game. So it should be important to make such decision right. Especially when you compare effort to benefit. Changing some planes should be done in one work day. But the benefit is huge, when all the CV players have iconic planes to play. Sure there are always people, who don't care or have any clue about that, but those are also not negative effected. Can't imagine, that it is much work to swap plane models.

Still better choice than J5N. P1Y1 is maybe too big - the position on a CV is incorrect. But the purpose is correct - bombing. J5N has the wrong position and the wrong purpose. So it's 1 wrong things vs 2 wrong things It's also the question, what would happen, if the J5N would carrier a torpedo - could it even take off correctly? But as I said, it's still a bad choice, there are many good choice.

Just because we had ships, that doesn't existed, doesn mean, that we have to go with bad decisions, when good decisions are actually avaiable. Also it's something different, if you implement ships, that were planned for building - to potentially they could have existed. But using something, that were not able to use for that case, is just wrong. I mean we could place artillery tanks on a CV as well...

Still no idea, why would you pick an interceptor, which never was on a CV instead of an actual carrierbased Bomber? xD I mean I would rather go with P1Y1, which could actually carrie a 800 kg bomb... still not the best choice but it would be better imo. Though I wouldn't like that as well. Because still a bad plane choice, the only better thing would be, it's a bomber and not a fighter Funfact, they used the P1Y1 in one of their cinematic intros

I could imagine that landing is an important aspect for carrier based planes ;) Also did you tryed to take off with a Type 91 Mod 7 Torpedo or a Typ 99 No. 80 (~800kg) bomb? It's not just the point "it could start". it's about there are many aspects, why we shouldn't take the plane on a carrier. It was an interceptor, not a Divebomber or Torpedobomber, also it was landbased for a reason. But it's actually interesting, that you tryed that in a different game, hehe

With changing models I mean changing the type of plane. J5N is a nice landbased interceptor... But I don't want landbased interceptor, I want carrier based Torpedobomber and Divebomber xD

Ich mag ja die B5N, sehr ikonisch, aber die B7N ist einfach nur ein schönes Flugzeug, und ich spiele nicht mal oft Shokaku einfach weil ich die Kaga habe xD Wäre die D3A auf der Kaga, ich würde nur noch die Divebomber verwenden, egal wie gut oder schlecht die wären xD Ja, das ist wirklich etwas, was ich mich frage, ist ne schlechte Designentscheidung.

I wish they would change the models like some people suggested

Wieder die Hakuryu re-grinded und wünschte mir einfach nur, dass es so wäre wie hier aufgelistet. Wobei ich für die Kaga gerne D3A2 hätte, um einfach der T8 Rolle gerecht zu werden Und es wäre so eine einfach Änderung, einfach das System mit Stock -> Upgrade planes entfernen und die richtigen Modells einsetzen, msus man ja nicht mal was an den Stats rütteln und wenn man umbedingt Stock -> Upgrade haben möchte, könnte man einfach anstatt verschieden Flugzeuge, verschiedene Bewaffnung nehmen, bessere Bomben etc @Sehales würde gerne mal die Antwort von den Entwicklern wissen, warum man sich für die J5N entschieden hat als Torpedo- und Sturzbomber. Die J5N Ist ein Land-basierter Abfangjäger. Also weder ein Flugzeug auf einem Träger, noch ein Bomber. Ist so, als würden wir jetzt einen Zerstörter nehmen und ihn als Schlachtschiff klassifizieren.

Hm, is anyone playing T3 because it's their favorite Tier? Just wondeirng, otherwise that Tier should be skipped after 3 battles? Or one victory on Christmas :D

My advice for you is is not going for this particular replay and searching for a particular mistake. I think you do fine. My advice is that this game has a long learning curve, ships play different, have different armor layouts, different mechanics. So my advice is to keep playing, learn more over time and you get better without looking for a mistake. It's more about getting more and more knowledge ^^

If you want talk about your perfmance and archiving too many shatters, whe shouldn't go with the worst case - the russian BBs xD The russian bbs often have the tankiest armor. Well, the enemy DD is one good reason to run away, but that the enemy is outnumbering, is also a reason. I played FdG in ranked last time, and I noticed, that this ship is not shining with super good guns, but with the potential and utility it grants and also to bait enemies with the tankyness (doesn't mean to waste HP but taking some hits and then run away, just like you did in your replay takes so much attention away from your allies)

Oof, was first watchign, then reading, what the actual question is. While watching I was wondering, why the replay is put in, because I don't see any major mistakes. Macro wise you went mostly for the correct position, Early for a Island for a good suprising position, and whe nyou realize, that you are outnumbered, you leave. I just would leave earlier, I assume, because the DD is in the flank and the large number of BBs is seen early. But Macro wise it was generally good. Will have to look again for the aiming - is there a particular time stamp, where you need to know? ALso maybe send the screenshot of the battle result... you can see, what have done the most damage in one of the tabs ;)

You could do 20 games in a row with Prinz Eugen and tell us, how many T10 matches you got ;) Also you a refering to "team game", but the MM is team-wise not bad, it's almost a mirror-team. So Team-wise the MM is pretty fair. It's only unfair for the solo player, who get bottom placed. But as I said, regarding to the team, it's doesn't matter, the enemy have also those bottom placed players

But that is good? When the T10s fight mostly only T10s, then it's fair for the single player, but I know. Some T10 player prefer to sealclub :P The Question is, how the 3-5-7 matchmaker really works. Tries it to fill exactly that shape? Or is it more a restriction? That is a different way to go with it. At least I would design it, that this is a restriction and not a recommendedn pattern. That means if the match makers starts to match an wants to pick top tiers, it just stops picking top tiers, when 3 are available, instead of filling more and more into the match. As long as I know the 3-5-7 for WoT was the problem, because top tiers are way stronger than top tiers in WoWS, so this can't be applied here. I would appreciate only 3 Top tiers max. That would make ships like Atago way more playable, when there are not 10 T10s xD

Yes, that was what I'm talking about ,thank you :D

There are more T10s than T9 as far as I know, it would be really no issue to match T10s in T10-only matches most of the time and just sometimes as top tier with other tiers

Why should it be bottom match every match? You balance that out with creating some matches with only even tiers. That is even in the current matchmaker happening. I mean this 3-5-7 system doesn't mean, that you only go with it? Even Tier matches still can happen as far as I know.

I don't understand, why people don't like this matchmaking in world of Warships. When I'm bottom, I would prefer only a few Top tiers instead of 10 top tiers.

That's more a speculation. I'm pretty sure, that they not only go with statistic. They have tester and they go with player feedback, at least they are saying that. Also there is no company on the world which get everything right always at every time. Take league of legends, they still release champions which are too strong or too weak. The best example for a company with such a budget and size. Sure, Wargamin could balance faster, but guess what, people would come up with "Hey they are hurrying too fast with the balance, they should test more and gather more data". So I assume pvp-game companies will never do it right ^^