Takeda92

It's the whining players that must go back to WoT.

Many threads were opened about the state of CVs so I'll get straight to the point. -Remove strike deck (or every unbalanced decks) -Buff fighters durability and ammunition. -Scale the damage of torpedoes and bombs from 5k in tier 4 (currently the 8k is too much) to 9-10k on tier 10 for torps and from 4500 to about 7000-7500 for bombs. -Slightly buff lower tier plane durability (since AA is considerably buffed on lower tier ships in 0.4) -Re-introduce manual aim. with the decreased number of TB squadrons it should be fine now. -Introduce optional decks instead. For example Hakuryuu (fighter/TB/DB): a 3/2/3 deck or a 2/3/3 deck With this and some general carrier balances and new quirks like: -Rework carrier MM to never have 1 vs 0 carriers. -Introduce fighter ability to attack ships to momentarily weaken their AA, giving bombers a very narrow window to an easier approach. This ability is disabled if a cruiser is using it's panic ability or in the presence of allied fighters. please show your support to this suggestion if you think it would work. We need to make WG listen and they don't unless many people demand it, juts like what is happening with nerf-demanding players.

Well WG said there won't be another wipe, it doesn't mean they won't change their mind. Ask NA players about the last time they believed a dev post!

Heck WoWS is not perfect and I'm not entirely happy with how devs are handling things but I still rather play this than WoT!

If they make fighters worth the effort and give them a playstyle that is both rewarding and not just click-click then I'd say loadouts are better this way. Fighters are good at defending your self and supporting your attack and it's not fair that people need to sacrifice either fighters or bombers fir the sake of attack or defense.

I thought one of the reasons WoWp failed is because it's too arcady and dumbed down? WoWs almost followed the same patch by removing the manual aim skill, ofc they did it with the vocal warning against torps.. but localized balance issues are not enough to kill a game, especially when most of them are due to players not wanting to learn so they come and whine in forums.

Blinded by patriotism I would presume.

I still don't get why some people are against making this ship more enjoyable to play.. it's not like buffing the turret rotation to 30-40 seconds range or buffing the torp range (which is needed since it is the same stock on Mutsuki) would make the ship overpowered. What about giving it its historical torp launchers? It had 12 launchers with the single turrets, 8 with the dual ones.

When will people learn they are not supposed to evade all torps but just to minimize the damage. Battleships have armor, HP and regen ability for a reason.

Fufu ya scared? xD

Get Kongou and it will change your opinion. Don't judge an entire class by the first ship.

If you hit and did no damage then you used wrong ammunition or hit the wrong spot. AP is bad against low armored targets, and hitting the superstructure gives you almost no damage. Angles play a big role too and ricochets are not unlikely to happen. You have to aim well at the citadel and with certain angle and distance to do well in AP. That's why we have HE, it gives constant damage but nothing too crazy.

C'mon, we played Tachibana before, she's not new. I was hoping for a higher tier premium IJN DD...

I suspect you are playing in lower tiers, where neither you or allies have an idea how to make evasive actions against torps. Experienced players can almost evade all torps send against them the entire game. Play enough DD in high tiers and you will see that, and please stop with "nerf" threads and use the forum search tool, there are enough topics regarding this already.

lol they are making fun of us now. We know very well what they think of our feedback. none of the changes this patch had anything to do with our "feedback" in the first place.

Furutaka also have bad angles for her turrets for forward firing especially for no. 4 turret. Another point why Aoba is better since the guns are better placed. As for the guns the damage is nice sure but she has one of the lowest dpm too. The issue here is not the ship being UP. Statistically she is fine it seems. She's just not fun to play.

Funny how everyone is saying Aoba is a nice ship while it was hated before Furutaka came in. I guess Furutaka was Aoba's buff!

I suggest that acquisition is based on the distance the torp has travelled. For example, from 0-5 the acquisition is 1km, from 5-7 1.2km, 7-10 is 1.5km, 10-15 is 1.7km and 15-20km is 20km. Numbers are just for the example. This makes closing on the enemy as close as possible more rewarding for the risk.

Some ships have stealth or manueverability, or small size. AA is not your final defence against planes. Also Miyogi got AA now and you can equip a fighter plane, so does Kuma. As you can see not all t3-4 ships are vulnerable as you make it seem.

If you want to take down planes easily then go play another ship. If a ship has weak AA then it is supposed to be vurnable to CVs. Play in a platoon with a Yuubari and ask him for escort, or with a fighter CV. You can't expect too do everything alone.

CV is counter to BB and you are complaining that a lower tier BB can't survive multiple attacks from a CV. Meanwhile if a cruiser player starts complaining of oneshots from a BB you tell him thst is how it is supposed to be and to learn to play.

Look at Minekaze and Mutsuki stock torps then.

All low tier shipsbare small and have small turn circles.. it's not hard to evade the torps. The damage on tier 4 just need to tone down a bit.. 8k is slightly too much.

And tier 3 BBs also face tier 2 cruisers.. how's that fair then? They are tier lower and T4 CVs have too few planes so don't expect to have it easy when facing a tier higher CV. Tier 3 BBs need something to make them fun, AA is not one of them.

Carriers start at tier 4.. no reason to give tier 3 AA