Prospect_b

tad informal adverb adverb: a tad; adverb: tad 1. to a small extent; somewhat. You heard it here people, Belfast is just barely stronger than a Yorck or Myoko.

Same. So it's a yes only for kamikaze Also voted no on impregnator, even though I don't have it, cause I have other clubships that need some loving too.

this And this. Played a handful of ranked games yesterday. 45% shima's as far as the eye could see. Wilkatis here can share his experience of my team's shima chasing him to I/J line all game, accomplishing absolutely nothing. Did he run 20km torps btw? (combined with the rest of my team suiciding when we had 2 caps of course) Irrevocable r12 in previous seasons was too leniant to begin with. To make it even higher at r10 is beyond moronic.

The second I saw the title I knew what game it was about. To answer your question with a question: who stole my team's brains?

I see a problem. It's called elementary math

Well you fixed the option to reply. There's not really that much of a problem with the +2/-2 matchmaking, though it is painful for a lot of ships. The problem is more the frequency where you will be uptiered. A Hipper might do ok in a tier 10 game. Though when you're grinding it, play ten games and only be top tier 2 times, it'll get old really fast. Imho the protected matchmaking at low tiers should be fixed, more so than the +2-2 rules.

So true. So sad...

No sh1t. This is a genius from yesterday. Just below 18500 (!!) battles in total. Lots of tX. So much learned... One has to wonder how he/she (no sexism regarding idiots) didn't learn a single thing after clicking "battle" for eighteen effing thousand times. Baffling. Also, trust me, my top kek turtleback KM CA says "screw you guy, I'm going home" often enough when I go potato.

This. I barely remember a handful of games without DDs, but it was the same BS at with DDs. Most BBs will also stay at max range, start reversing with the first incoming shell, and watch while their cruisers do the work and/or get killed. You could give a BB 5km stealth, a Romulan cloak and a, electromagnetic shield that lasts 2 minutes per charge, and most of them will still refuse to put their precious ship at risk. (Exception being when the game is all but lost, then it is time to finally go full steam ahead to search for a suitable mating ramming partner of course - most likely failing at it and dying in 40 seconds) Not talking about you specifically, but yes, to be honest. Anyone who still dares to propose any counter to whatever more than imaginary perceived "weakness" of BBs, can in the end not be taken seriously anymore. What @El2aZeR describes (i.e. the buffs of BBs/nerfs of antiBB weapons) is sadly all but true. In fact, can someone say to me, as in seriously, if there are any items on the BBingo card unchecked, and if so, how many? And maybe, at a certain point in the future, changes to BBs (as buffs) might be taken seriously again, but only, and only, after major flaws have been fixed, including some well deserved love for the unterships (i.e. non-BBs) in this game... Exactly this, btw, proves that BBs don't need any buffs to them at all. The moment BB mains that complain about all that "OP HE spam", "fish spam", "unavoidable deletion by CV", effectively start playing such uberstrong non-BB classes, then a new era will have arived. But at the moment they just want to sail a floating deathstar (RU BBs ) while instablapping everything that dares to challenge them. But it isn't. The "lobby of the game" is filled, or better, overpopulated with BBs, for years now. That alone should be more than indicative something is wrong. (And yea, I'm aware that WG has officialy stated BBs should be "looked at"... words words words)

O please. What then was the intended meaning? That there is A BB that MIGHT get killed by three torps? Wow, sure. And then you'll go on to find that peculiar BB that might get torped by very peculiar torps in a very peculiar set of circumstances... I didn't even intentionally try to misquote you, but hey. I like the effort you take in taking your own words so relative, that they might mean anything. Like your non existing "5km detection" DDs didn't mean 5km "decimally", so suddenly it became true. But I am one of those absolutists who takes my numbers too decimally I guess. I urgently need to train on interpreting them more metaphorically. Though that feels quite seven and a halfish. --- Besides that, I'm willing to be generous and "metaphorically" interpret your statement "3 torps can kill a BB" as "3 torp hits hurt a lot for a BB". Ok, fine. That's what the holy BBingo card has been stating since the dawn of mankind anyway. As for your general point, as I said, cruisers & DDs are much more prone to get oneshot by torps than any BBs, and other means. I don't like people argumenting about BBs going full camp because of fear of damage, when the other ships feel that same weapon damage far harder, and don't go full coward en masse. The easiest way is still a severe nerf of BB gun range.

I wasn't the one stating the "3 torps can kill any BB" at high tiers. AFAIK it is the one posing such statements that has to provide the evidence. And while Wilkatis example might be correct, that is a t8 bb getting hit by torps of two tiers higher. Also those torps are visible from the moon, and most BBs are agile enough to turn into them and not take all. The point made by you and other ppl about "oooh torps so dangerous to BB" is not really serious. If anything, Ships that get blown out of the water (while still at full health) by torps commonly are cruisers, and other DDs. Ships that get blown out of the water (while still at full health) by other means, i.e. battleship AP, also commonly are cruisers and DDs. Very rarely BBs, cause "mimimii other BBs can hurt me in my sweet spot" caused WG to make most BB citadels untouchable. See a pattern?

Give me one replay of a bb at t8+ getting killed with three torps, and I'll concede. Fine?

Not only t10. t7 King George outspots myoko by 600 or so meters. But it's not only the British ones. In the current meta every BB takes CE + the module. The alternative for the module should be better, and especially, CE should get a rework. BBs get a higher % of concealment than cruisers or DDs, and get of course an implicit bonus because any percentage will benefit ships with large (initial) concealment more in absolute terms. I don't find Hindenburg vs Yamato that reasonable for example, let alone vs Montana. Some other cruisers suffer as well in this department. While I can live with certain BBs being a stealth ship, it should be extremely exceptional. Now every BB becomes a North cal. Same can be said for AA for example, although that is less my department. Gneisenau was once the exception with very good AA on t7, now there's lyon as well. On higher tiers every new line gets idiotic values. And then I'm not even saying smt about the plague of tier 9 called Missouri. You're referring to the Mongueror I guess. Any high tier BB can instakill DDs, or make them borderline useless for a lot of their roles with one volley, and they don't need HE at all. I'm not even sure if Mongueror wouldn't have a higher chance of instakilling DDs with AP rather than HE. Anyone any experience with this? How could I have ignored this one? Sigh. There isn't a single high tier DD with 5 km concealment (kagero has 5.4, most DDs have 5.8+) and not a single one of them can kill any BB with three hits.

? Intention or direction have nothing to do with it. It's just a syntactical form if you use "(to) go" as an auxiliary verb to indicate a future tense. "I'm going TO sleep/type/go/whatever" as opposed to other auxiliaries e.g.: "I must rest now" or "I keep worrying" that take the two other infinitive forms. Direction/intention is only applicable in your other example, going TO the market (as direction). And intention vs direction are not the same, which isn't a finesse of language.

They're not. Above all they are too hard to kill and, related, too stealthy. The "to" in this last example is just because "to go" (going) requires the "to X" (to shoot) form of the infinitif as complement.* (edit: not necessarily? A native speaker would have to confirm if a sentence like "I'm going shooting" is correct. I doubt it, but not sure)

The most unlikeable thing about it, is that it will add to the high tier reverse-bow-on-borefest, and that it is yet another anticruiser weapon added to the game. Both aren't anything close to what the game needs atm...

LOL De michiel en zijne fanta "hallo met de zelfmoordlijn? Ik zou zelfmoord wille plegen want ik wil mijne cd van Belle Perez terug" Ik weet niet of Loran die humor wel kan snappen. Keeskoppen enzo. Ook, kameraad, als er hier ook maar één admin rondloopt die vloms verstaat hebt gij zo'n problemen (vandaar dat ik maar efkens het vloms blijf bezigen) edit: frieten? --- also, for those feeling a lit estranged, we're having a little discussion about this high point of flemish culture:

It really isn't. The influence of DPM in DD vs DD fights is marginal. Map awareness for example is far more important, to get the first volley off, or to know when to fight & when not. And this is speaking about the extremely hypothetical DD vs DD where both have same health and no other ships are involved. I agree with That proposed module is ridiculous, same as some of those battleboat modules.

4 fires with almost 400 shells eh. Fires so OP. Also, don't forget your promise to share your replay when your Atlanta sees t9 Okinawa. Just share it here on the forums

Good thing they are doing something about the BB plague. *reads above Oh...

Because, when eating ebola infected monkeymeat and driving a screwdriver through my ears gives the same result so much faster, playing ranked for days and days seems horribly inefficient. And I'm all about efficiency...

Ugh. Sarcastic comment about constantly increasing amount of horribly presented posts - with ppl not even bothering to reread a post title. wateverz

Sure. Give us replay then.

Good old Toby. People make fun of all the errors in the post of the non-native speaker - here he is to defiantly () show us quality British spelling and grammar, not to mention that Financial Times like editing and punctuation... Toby, the real humanitarian among all us scrubs

Hint. You got free flags out of it. edit: ninja'd by German cereals