eliastion

I'll just leave this here. http://www.imgbox.de/users/MudMonkey/Statistik_AP_HE.jpg The last tier at which HE spam+fires actually deal more damage to cruisers than AP is t4. at high tiers (7+) actually AP deals more damage to them than all other kinds of damage combined. So no, it's not cruisers that suffer from HE. It's you. As for the second part I quote. Lol. I mean, I get it, you play a torpboat and avoid knife fights with other DDs, that sounds like a solid strategy since that's what torpboats are for and what they're weak at, respectively. But making a virtue out of it, seriously? In fact, you're going after big, slow targets that can't avoid your torps easily - isn't it cowardly compared to a glorious (even if stupidly suicidal) face-off with an enemy that CAN both dodge your torps AND outgun you? Now wouldn't that be the true samurai spirit, instead of running form enemy DDs like a coward you are?

We literally see where the shells start - this sounds like a pretty good approximation of muzzle flashes. And some players somewhat consistently prove that nailing stationary targets in smoke isn't much of a problem if someone knows how to aim for the muzzle flashes. So... what we have now seems pretty realistic and consistent with your experience here.

You should really try to play CV. They're literally the hardest class to play - and punished the hardest when you happen to meet an opponent more skilled than you.

While I agree that removal of manual drop is a terrible idea, I must oppose to the idea of "manual drop available after upgrading planes". As bad as lack of manual drop is, it's still better than having CVs with (upgraded) and without (stock) manual drop on the same tier.

I thought about this but I don't think it's a good idea. The gap between super-fast-reload guns and, say, these things carried by IJN DDs would be huge (and hurt the ships that are squishy and can't pump out much DPM either way). It should be based on either of the following: - caliber (possibly with some exceptions like the russian DDs had a special concealment penalty when firing) - class (again, with possible exceptions) - fine-tuned balancing on ship-by-ship basis

False. Belfast has much higher impact - but not by shooting things up. The impact comes from the consumables: - radar to deny area to/spot enemy DDs for team to kill - smoke to keep herself safe in a way no other Radar cruiser can - hydro to make enemy smoke torping less devastating Belfast can't carry the team alone (not that any other ship could) but she's THE support vessel and in Ranked that really, REALLY makes the difference. If one team has a shiratsuyu and the other doesn't - the team with shira has a bit of an advantage thx to the combination of good torps and superior stealth. If, however, one team has Belfast and the other doesn't? Well, then the advantage is massive.

The compartment for damage saturation are pretty big: bow, rear, middle and superstructure, if I'm not mistaken (although I might be, I say as I think I've seen depicted somewhere). So, as long as you kept hitting the rear and overpenning/getting penetrations, this is consistent with that. HOWEVER damage saturation has no impact on citadel penetrations. Also, to have more info about what your shells are doing, I recomment turning on "detailed ribbons" (or however it was named in the settings) so that the game tells you if you pen, overpen, bounce or fail to penetrate your target. This is not perfect (there are places/situations where you can score a penetration to full-hp ship and deal no damage) but they're still a good source of information about your guns' performance against the enemy.

I have to disagree with that. You see, faster return to stealth means that you can start shooting and - once the enemy starts to show you his love - you can disengage. What does it mean? Well, it means that it's much more likely that the enemy would prefer some other, less stealthy target first - after all, with much shorter hunting season window he can't hope to kill you before you disappear! So, you can try to get that DPM of yours working and then just disengage when things get scary. Would this help you in 1v1? No, of course not. But in fleet operations when you strike from a different angle? Hell yes. Positioning and situational awareness (you know, skill) would let you make use of your DPM on distracted targets WITHOUT opening fire being pretty much an all-in it is now with the dreaded 20 seconds of here-I-am-shoot-me-please state.

Buffing torps, depending on how handled, could have one of the following results: - ships that rely almost exclusively on torps (and hardly ever shoot guns as it is) get buffed; some of them perhaps should but not because of this patch changes but because they underperform - ships that rely on their guns or on some balance between guns and torps get pushed towards being torp-boats Neither is what should be done. What should be done is introduction of some new mechanic that allows for existence of stealthy gunboat/hybrid DDs - something that lets them use their stealth (STEALTH, not dodging) to survive while still using their guns. I mean, sure, Akizuki with 30 second cooldown on her torp reload booster would certainly be more than viable, but that's not the point - people who want to be scary because of torpedoes have other ships to do that. Unfortunately, WG seems to have decided that the game has too much variety and they want to eliminate tactical stealth play in any form more enagaging than sitting in smoke and trying to not get torped in the process.

So the devs that know what are doing apparently don't just add mechanics that work differently than intended - they add whole ships (or even lines of ships) that have no place in the game since they're DDs that are about as close to torps being their primary weapon as Tirpitz is.

But that doesn't make any sense. The problem wasn't (at least that was what he himself seemed to be saying) that it was uncomfortable to fight stealth-firing foe but impossible. That the advantage was absolute and (with exception of a mistake made by the stealth firing player) there was no way to overcome this advantage. And to an extent that was true, in some very specific scenarios there indeed was some truth to this in endgame (as long as the endgame happened early enough for there to be lots of time to plink-plink the BB). I'd argue about how common these frustrating situations were but there is certainly a point to be made here - if such situation arises, there's lots of time and a DD and a BB with the former capable of stealth-fire, even skilled BB is just forced to minimize damage by running away and hope for a big mistake of the enemy. But in case of "blinking"... that's just no longer the case. Now a good BB captain is always able to return fire. In fact, the match-up becomes somewhat evenly matched because a) if the DD kites and BB follows, the DD has the upper hand, but even gunboats are probably better off just staying silent and hoping for a good torpedo hit b) if the BB kites and DD follows, the DD can't torp effectively and can't use gun without being exposed to potentially crippling return fire; it's actually the BB with advantage in this scenario The only way that blinking would be in any way comparable to invisifire would be with an assumption that the DD can fire a couple salvos, disappear before BB guns turn, and then reappear from completely different angle to repeat the process. That's completely unrealistic, though, unless there is some DD planned with 100+ kn speed. Even current speeders just can't reposition fast enough to make it work.

The bloom isn't affected. Your regular concealment the bloom gets added to: of course still is.

It doesn't matter, the fighter also spots things - in fact it's often better for spotting things than a spotter because fighter (on cruisers) tends to have much better duration.

Wait, what? The abuse of SF was that a ship was able to shoot someone and that someone couldn't do anything about it. With big bloom but faster return to stealth, the above is completely impossible - it lets people use stealth to their advantage (since they can disappear when they start getting focused) but they CAN'T just stay safe and fire - if the enemy is willing to consider them the primary target (and, specifically: if the stealthy gunboat IS the only target remaining) then there's no way to abuse concealment and inflict damage with impunity. Shooting will always reveal you, you're safe only so far as people are unwilling to start shooting you (because they know you'll then disappear before they get to tear you to shreds completely). The only problem that could possibly be identified where it comes to SF (a faster enemy you can't chase down or run away from and that shells you down with no option for you to shoot back) is just completely gone - how the hell could faster fade-out lead to "same kind of abuse"? If you spot the enemy when he's shooting, there's just no way for him to shoot you (barring something blocking line of sight) without giving you a chance to shoot back - does Sub_Octavian actually dispute this fact?

Whoa. I never thought that I'd meet an actual exemplification of a scrub. "I don't like this so it's like cheating"... Now with that, dear sir, you took away any sort of credibility you might've had left. You're a bad player who's unwilling to learn and adjust - and you only want everyone to adjust to you and your style. You even dare to say that people "should adjust" while their consistently better performance (not XP farming but helping their teams win) proves their superior (to yours) ability to adjust.

Well, then I tried to edit with a link to "or try this one" but my Internet died and it apparently didn't send the edit I thought I made

I dare to disagree on that. 1. Minsk doesn't have a 14 km fire range. It has 11,1 km or 12,2 km (depending on the upgrade) and can be further extended with AFT. Now: if AFT makes it too long - you can free up 4 points for other use. If it's still too long: you can cut it to 11,1 by picking stock Fire Control System. And furthermore... 2. Minsk is hardly a stealth-based ship. Her defense from enemies isn't being unseen - it's going at 43kn BEFORE she hits acceleration or hoists any signals. Basically, you don't pick Minsk for her stealth, be it while firing or otherwise. I don't think Minsk is going to be hit that much, be it in stats or in playstyle.

...this thread was 2 years old. As much as I commend the use of search function, I think you could've just started a new one...

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/76406-win-rate-and-luck/ It's... not very realistic to think anyone's winrate over lots of battles is just "more often getting teams that let you win". It's the player, his ships, his captains, his consumables and - most importantly - his skill. Sure, win% can be padded (good division mates especially make a difference) so very good (60%+) winrates aren't always completely deserved, but really bad winrate? The chances of it just being lack of luck are completely negligible once you hit thousands of battles on your counter. As for other things... So... I take it you also expect a potmaker to be automatically more knowledgeable about practical usage of pots and shouldn't listen to concerns of an experienced chef claiming, that the new pot design seems uncomfortable and will make his job harder, because previous design had some advantages the potmaker weren't aware of? Not to mention that "being spot-on" doesn't really work as an argument seeing how it's been a long time since they stated that BB % is worryingly high... and the changes along the way not only didn't bring the number down - the proportion keeps increasing. And of course, no single change will "kill" the game and people often overreact. But the game not crumbling (as doomsayers predict) from some change doesn't make it a good change either. And finally, your claims about how unimportant the visibility bloom after firing is... with your point being based on Akatsuki experience... Well, Akatsuki is almost exclusively a torp-boat, her gun range is short, but her profile low and speed high. Meanwhile the main problems with too high visibility after shooting concern ships that rely on their guns (unlike Akatsuki), have good range (not Akatsuki's strength) and are somewhat sluggish both in speed and handling (not a problem Akatsuki would really suffer from, either). Akatsuki just isn't a DD that (as her main job at least) duels enemy DDs with guns or derives most (or at least a big portion of) her damage output from gunfire on bigger threats. And if she does get spotted: well, she's capable of fast retreat and dodging. So yes, sure, she's not significantly affected by the changes. But that in no way invalidates concerns about ships that ARE affected. To point out the difference more: Akatsuki herself is a ship that could conceivably benefit stat-wise from a change outright removing all guns from all DDs. That doesn't mean, however, that such change wouldn't negatively affect some other ships (and the game as a whole).

Guys, I know the emotions run high but let's keep civil. Since we've been graced with appearance of people actually deep in the whole balancing and development of the game thing, throwing insults around is just childish. I can somewhat understand that when you feel completely ignored, but since Sub_Octavian has visited and replied here - it would be much more productive to put forth the arguments you have and explain your perspective. Being rude with little to no actual arguments can show your anger but won't convince anyone to anything (or at least to anything other than giving up on going through people's opinions here - and thus missing on the more constructive and better argumented ones that COULD perhaps lead them to reconsider some aspects of their policies).

One more thing - because I might've not explained myself clearly enough. My biggest problem with PT update (in regards to DDs) isn't the balance issue. Balance can be worked out, really. Torps can be stronger, there can be more hp, handling can improved so that, say, Akizuki turns like crazy and can reliably dodge. Or, well, there are USN gunboats with great smoke and russian DDs with speed and guns to just zip around the map shooting things while being hard to hit. The real problem is - to me - that tactical options are taken away from the game. I like Yugumo. She's supposedly weak but I like her a lot - for her guns. For the ability to inflict extra damage while using either the combination of stealth and range (for invisifire and otherwise long-range sniping on edge of detection) or a combination of stealth and terrain (for shooting at closer targets with some island/smoke between us while not being spotted by others) to supplement torp damage. I like Yugumo's flexibility in using stealth as tactical tool both for using her torpedoes and guns! Current changes take that aspect of the game away. Stealth ceases to be a tactical tool you can use when firing your guns. If there's someone in line of sight - be it your target or someone else - you're going to get spotted. Your gun range must either be so short that you're easy target wen firing OR it severely handicaps your stealth. I don't care much for number crunching to make DDs strong/tanky eonugh to not need to use stealth. I want the option to use it. I want to be able to outplay people through the use of my superior concealment - and that's what stealth-fire removal takes away from me. I don't need to be able to shoot with impunity on open water, mind you. What I want is some stealth-based tactical options that don't mean sitting in smoke - and reduced bloom time would actually allow just that... When I want to just sit in smoke, well - I have Her Majesty's Royal Navy for that one. And USN DDs.

Ok, first of all - how's 10 seconds "blinking"? Even with a single shot from a DD any of her counters (with reasonably fast traversing guns on roughly the correct side of the ship) get to take aim and fire. And more often than not, guns are going to be pre-aimed pretty close to the intended target. On the other hand, when already under fire, 20 seconds is AGES for something as vulnerable as a spotted DD. I don't think you're misreading. The example I have is pretty specific but here you go (I mentioned this in that post, here I just give numbers): stock New Mexico without a captain displacement 32 000 long tons, firing her 356mm guns in salvos. Visibility: 14,6 km right after firing, 14,2 for 13 seconds after 20s penalty expires and guns are still loading fully upgraded Akizuki with full concealment build and AFT displacement 2 700 long tons, firing her 100mm guns in salvos. Visibility: 14,9 km Basically, an upgraded Akizuki with AFT has more range - and therefore worse concealment when firing - than stock New Mexico. It's not that much of a balance problem, but it's absoltely ridiculous nonetheless... And now, stealth means, well, stealth, disappearing or not showing up. Enemy not being able to reliably hit you (assuming it even works to give netto benefit) is a completely different thing, not a mechanic allowing for tactical stealth utilization (which would be interesting and skilled play).

This. Fixes. NOTHING. It does not introduce any way to really use stealth to your advantage in a gunboat. It does not let you disappear easier after your close-by target dies or smokes up. It does not change the fact that some DDs can conceivably have worse concealment when firing than some BB ALSO WHEN FIRING. Not to mention that bad dispersion helps DDs on short-to-middle ranges (where it increases the number of missed shells) while actually hurting them on long ranges (where shotgun accuracy makes dodging less feasible and ensures some hits even with less-than-perfect aim). I mean, perhaps Akizuki might benefit (she can't dodge sh*t anyway) but I highly doubt if any DDs are going to really feel this buff, as for every shell missed due to dispersion they'll probably eat one thx to shotgun effect... What we need to make this update half-way decent is reduction of bloom time for DD guns. With no more than 10 seconds of bloom (it should be lower, really, but 10 seconds would be workable) disengaging would actually be feasible and firing your guns not an "all-in" decision as it is now. 20 seconds is just ridiculous for ships with survivability of DDs. DDs that fire their guns would still be visible (so no invisi-fire, even in late-game 1v1 scenarios the enemy can pre-aim guns in the general direction and always get at least that one salvo with potentially crippling damage potential) but would have an option to shut up and disappear. They could STILL rely on stealth to survive through hit-and-run tactics against distracted enemies - but without the capacity of inflicting a death of tousand peas on ships unable to return fire. After all, the patch was not meant to nerf STEALTH-RELIANT ships, it was meant to make the game better, right? Wouldn't an ability to really use stealth in combat - while not being invulnerable through perma-invisibility - make the game better and more fair for everyone!?

It's a welcome buff for some ships that struggled with range (frankly, low tier IJN DDs often had it pretty rough - forget stealth fire, to even fire their puny guns at all they needed to get into suicidal range). Add to that the fact that these ships don't usually have high-level captains to make up for bad range... So yeah, some ships really needed that buff. On higher tiers it becomes much more iffy. And for Akizuki specifically... well, I feel like (if I'm gonna to try and play her, but you know: premium camo and one of my only two 19-point captains) I'll have to give up not only on AFT but also the improved targeting (or whatever it was named). The extra range is only occasionally useful with the firing arc on these ranges being so high that hitting a target not dodging as much as just not sailing in perfect straight line is... well, let's say that it's not that easy and whatever stray shells that hit, don't bounce and don't shatter... aren't doing much in terms of damage output.

Well, balancing based on performance of top 5%, middle 5% and bottom 5%, if I remember correctly, so it's not that stupid. Basically, it's better to know how the performance curve of a ship rather than just the average value. Problem is: they miss one crucial thing. Lots and lots of players don't just mean worse average performance - it just pushes the top performance unfairly. Top 5% will always be outliers. With lots and lots of players you're more likely to fish up these couple guys that are just perfectly suited for the ship (and will stick to it) forming that couple % elite. The bottom, on the other hand, isn't pushed that much lower - the bottom couple % will always be total potatoes no matter how big of a sample you have. So, much played ships will tend to have: - lower average than their stats deserve - bottom about as bad as their stats deserve (there's always enough people to potato) - stronger top than their stats deserve And WG balancing team seems to miss especially that last part. Top 5% isn't good because the ship is good - it's good because she's played a lot... Paradoxically: the same reason her average stats are slightly lower than she deserves. Oh, and the stats he mentioned as making Shima #2 ship was damage and XP gained. FFs, both these stats are useless for in-game balancing and Shima gets all her damage on big, sluggish targets OF COURSE the numbers are gonna be better than in DDs that have DD-hunting as significant part of their job description! XP gain is even worse - if ship has poor XP it means nothing. If the win% is good then low XP simply means that the REWARDS are bad, not the ship! The ship makes the difference, wins games and just isn't rewarded - it's something to look at but not as a sign of the ship being weak! The same is true the other way, of course: a ship getting good XP and tons of DMG that nonetheless has low win% is most likely underpowered but overrewarded for objectively bad performance/negative impact on the battle. ...dont USN CVs have very good damage values and relatively decent XP gains, btw? I think they do... too lazy to go check right now...