Pikkozoikum

I don't get the context. I was talking about the misinterpretation of "WGs balances around popularity"

You can have doubts like you want. I have fun. Actually I can't remember, that FDR is an issue for a cruiser like Yoshino (damage wise). Yoshino as a lot flak explosions, FDRs take a lot damage. Mostly they avoide ships like that. Once I "two-shotted" a FDR squadron, that was fun :3

Actually I have fun with all my ships against CVs, especially with Yoshino and AA build :D

Hm, why should they disappear. I think it's more logical, that they stay. I mean the ping was hitting I think it doesn't matter if SAP or HE from a BB, shouldn't be mostly always a kill. At least I one shotted subs with HE . Though SAP could have a larger Explosion-cube, since it does more dmg, but no idea

-Russian T10s (Kremlin, Stalin, Petro primarly) -Sometimes DDs

What is the context about ballistic missiles? No idea what you want say here^^ Yes, that is the point of that ^^

If that BB could shoot an HE salvo, rip SS :D In a best case, the BB DCPs before impact and then one shots the SS. Yes, Noster is watchable ^^ Don't like all the rant. But on PTS I actually got some full player matches. In the end you need the live server data, to get a good result

Looking at the 25% best players on T10 cruisers, then Zao is at the bottom. Though the 25% statistic is also not that accurate, because Zao is a ship, that many people own. If 100 people own a new prem cruiser, than the 25% best are 25 players. While if 100,000 players own a silver ship, the 25% best would be 25,000 players. Thats a big difference ^^ But still, being at the bottom is something, looking at any stats, she is alway in the bottom half. For the fun, I looked at the player with the highest PR on Zao and checked his T10 cruisers with more than 20 games (lowest number 31 battles with Austin). From 9 cruisers, Zao is on 8 (WR) ^^

I think the most popular ships are still Yamato and Shimakaze, and those also don't get hard nerfed ^^ I don't like everything, what WG does, but going with wrong interpretation and then meme-ing about it, is kinda weird. It's fine, if topics are discussed critically, what is wrong and right. But there is often rant, that is undeserved. Like some people have a default attitude for ranting about stuff. I'm sure, some people would even rant about new maps or dubloon gifts ^^

The Zao comment is weird, yes. It actually needs a better answer to make sure, what they actually mean, because it makes not much sense. But it doesn't say, they balance around popularity, otherwise the Zao would get nerfed, not? In the same post, they also say that " we take into account the percentage of wins, absolute damage, relative damage, average number of destroyed ships, interactions with key areas, potential damage, analyzing how a ship plays against each class of ships and a significant amount of other statistics. " That doesn't sound like "we balance around popularity". Though there might some correlatin between popularity and strength of a ship

You can make a thread to that, if you want ;D Though I think Henri is actually better than Zao or Hindenburg, espeically because of the Reload Boost, which can change some situation.

If you mean the summer sumit, then that was a misinterpretation of people. They asked multiple times, if they balance by popularity, first they gave an explanation, then after they ask again they said "no". The Explanation gets often wrong interpretated. They said something, if Carrier is too strong, they will nerf them more. The part, which is wrong interpretated. They said something like, they don't want nerf too heavy, so people wouldn't leave the class What WG means -> They want nerf slightly stepwise, so they get closer the "balanced" status and not hard-nerf it, so the class is underpowered and unplayable, which would make no sense. Never saw, that they literally said, they balance by popularity. I think the explanation back then was also bad. So I think they meant something like this ->CV gets nerfed too hard -> CV is unfun to play, because hard nerfs -> CV gets unpopular -> WG sees popularity But they explained it more like "We see popularity -> We don't want it uncomfortable to play" Also Flamu said "Sounds like you artifically boost it, to make it popular" And he said "no"

I would assume the italian BBs, but I have no experience with those. I just can imagine, that the smoke is quite useful, but on the other side, I actually don't see often italian BBs Just noticed, that Shikishima has 3 times the played battles of the italian T10 bb, oof

I don't think, that modules in general affect the WR that much, because it's only a very little improvment of the whole ship. The module must be extremely overpowered to really see a different effect. Which is an indication, that this module might be imbalanced. It's not about balancing the ships, it's about balancing the modules. Best example might be Zao, I think her UU was way better than any other option The effect of 1 module should be still very small, because you still have the base values of the ship, the skills, other modules etc. It can of course have an influence, but a very small

Don't see any evidence, also no idea what Montana UU means. Halland, Shimakaze, Yamato are very popular ships, but they didn't get nerfed. As I said, they rather use high population as an indicator. That's why Yamato and Shima doesn't get nerfed even with high population. Also CV was never really a high populated class, and still gets nerfed. That they might nerf a high population ship is not unlikely, because it might be popular, because it's overpowered. That is more the context. If they balance around popularity, we would see a complete different balancing pattern. All the time the unpopular ships would get buffs and the popular nerfs, no matter if they are good or bad.

Though they don't balance by population, rather they use population as an indicator, that something could be wrong, so they check that.

She got later buffs like torpedo range and the IJN cruisers got more accuracy, though that doesn't help enough^^

Depends on the view, Zao is bad, or many other ships are just too strong. But a Des Moines vs Zao, the DM will always win under "fair" conditions. Zao vs DM 40k HP vs 50k HP 178k DPM vs 274k DPM Not just way less damage, but also less HP. If DM is bow in, she is a small target and still uses 66% dpm. Zao can full broadside, but then easy target, or only use rear, then only 50% dpm If Des Moines uses only bow, she will still have 180k dpm and will have more hp and be a smaller target. If Zao is not using full broadside, she will lose 50% of her 178k I think the problem wih Zao, why she doesn't get something like 250k dpm is, because she has heavy damage torpedos. If those hit, they hurt and do a lot, but the problem is, those are very unreliable.

Achso :D

Es gibt auch seichte Stellen mit dem UBoot Update, wo das UBoot nicht tief tauchen kann. Was das mit dem "Flaggen nur für Premium" bedeutet, verstehe ich nicht ganz. Die Signalflaggen gibt es für das spielen aus Container oder für Resourcen in der Waffenkammer, oder was ist gemeint?

The pings show the direction, so he knows the direction, and if it would hit the citadell, he could use before the impact dcp, then the torps do minimal dmg. So it's up to the players

Zao was always played like that. Earlier she even had worse central deck armor, hadn't she? Though not sure what you mean with rework? Also not sure about the CL part, Zao is a CA. The overall statistics mostly need a very more detailed look, technically they are not even good, but sadly we don't have any better, only WG has

Zao is probably a balanced ship. but there are many ships, that are not balanced (imba) ;D

Well the question is, when is operating depth better than maximum depth or persicope depth? There is only one scenario: The enemy is able to shoot you, the enemy is spotting you and you also can make use of the maximum depth with hydro. So the operating depth is only in a very specific scenario really useful. If you are not spotted, you use Surface (if enemy is >6km) or periscope depth (if enemy is around ~5km). If enemy is below 4km, you might don't want use ping, but you could use it at periscope depth but, you could also go to maximum depth, where your ping concealment is 0km, and use hydro, so you could ping invisible. But then, I actually never want the enemy there. If enemy is that close, I don't try to fight him, rahter to move away We also have to consider, we all are new, maybe there are some sick tactics, that we don't know yet

Thanks, I appreciate that :) The acousting torpedos do quite low damage, but also very high. I think the dumbfire torpedos should be between that, for the simple reason, they shouldn't be the number one choice all the time. The current torpedos do damage like 6500 for example. Not 100% sure, but it seems, they do bonus damage on citadell like +100% (I did double cit hits around 17-19k on BBs) So if those Torpedos have max damage of 6500, but bonus damage lets say 13k (not sure, if that is how it works) then the dumbfire torpedos should do around 10k damage withouth being able to get the 100% bonus from citadel hits. The gameplay would be in close range, a SS mostly don't want to ping. So launching those 6500 dmg torps is kinda weak. But instead it could launch 10k dumbfire torpedos from very close, which is not the max damage compared to double pings, but in that situation it might be the best outcome. I actually thought about the DCP but forgot about mentioning it. I also think the CVs just should get a different type of DCP, which can't be used on sonar pings or can effect those. Would be a quite easy solution Though about AA, I'm not sure, if the T10 german AA would be that weak, it looks nasty and remind me on the Halland AA^^ I think Halland doesn't have much AA, but it's still brutal. So the submarine doesn't need brutal aa, but if it's enough to kill fighters, that could be something. Maybe 100-150 dps on an AA heavy submarine, no idea