eliastion

Yeah, the mythic top X% players stats that can't be checked since no stat-gathering sites seem to be including such advanced filter... Only I somehow doubt that top players in, say, Shimakaze are somehow better than top players in Gearing (that has better everything) - especially to the extent justifying the ship sucking for everyone else.

I must say I personally appreciate Yugumo - I've specced her as a gunboat to supplement torp damage with guns and, frankly, I see her able to inflict some pretty serious hurt on USN counterpart... not in a fair fight, of course, but USN DD players at this tier seem to consider IJN DDs pretty harmless and are willing to give chase. Yugumo can project firepower backwards pretty well and USN DDs suffer from being forced to chase since that effectively extends the range of the chaser while reducing it for the one running away. Not to mention that while chasing someone it's easy to end up in a place where allies of your target can intervene. So, summing up: the "Fletcher with worse guns" is a gross oversimplification, the firing arcs of Yugumo are NOT something to be overlooked, creating possibility to fight back (in certain situations: favorably) and opening playstyles not possible with moonscraping guns of US DDs. If only high tier US DDs didn't boast better torps than the IJN torpboats...

I'd say that DDs (well, one particular DD at least) became so common in no small part because of proliferation of certain other ship capable of using Radar while in smoke... Which doesn't mean that a Belfast-full team was optimal, of course it wasn't, but having too many Belfasts was less of a burden than not having enough of them (or worse: not having any Radar cruiser at all). This Ranked season's main problem that encroached on P2W territory was that Ranked is, by it's nature, objective oriented. And yes, this puts a lot of responsibility upon DDs. But when it come's to DDs contesting caps, there's one game-changing mechanic that completely wrecks the normal balance of such activity - and this mechanic is Radar, of course. If one side has a Radar and the other doesn't, the former is in MUCH better starting position. And on t7 only Premium ships have Radar. So while I played this season almost exclusively in Shiratsuyu (a silver ship, pretty scary in sit-in-smoke-like-torps-don't-exist meta ), I can't completely disagree about the p2w aspect here. Belfast is hardly an auto-win ship but played decently it will hand you some easy wins just because the MM won't always ensure the enemy to have something with Radar too...

So. I wanted to give a longer reply, pointing out and commenting on all the BS you're spouting, AnuSamurai, but then you pretty much summed yourself up with this gem that explains everything, especially your ability to reflect on yourself to any extent.

Probably torps again, after all the changes DD players will be often forced to stick to torps - be it by picking more torp-oriented DDs or by building DDs that normally enjoy pretty respectable guns (and can be built to supplement the unreliable torp damage that way) in a more torp-focused fashion.

No. That's not speculation, that was explicitly stated by WG (you know, the people who made the game) although it's much less pronounced (due to BBs faring too well against DDs, mostly) now than it used to be. So, you want BBs to be nerfed so that they don't obliterate cruisers as they do currently? Because that's the only match-up where skill is mostly meaningless and class balance dictates the outcome.

Only on extreme ranges (well, in case of USN DDs not so extreme but that's because their shells take forever and a day to land ). You need to remember the 3s shift in visibility: things become visible after 3 seconds from moment of spotting and they disappear 3 seconds after breaking line of sight. So even a 5 seconds stealth ends 8 seconds after firing. Also, the bloom NEEDS to be short because we're talking ways for stealthy ships to retain their stealthiness despite ideas about removing stealth shooting that are, realistically speaking, quite likely to end up being "well, let's make them all as stealthy as Yamato when they fire!" 20 seconds for everyone is pretty stupid even in current mechanics (it means that BBs can literally disappear between salvos while DDs that dare to shoot their guns remain spotted for pretty lethal (to them) amount of time. 7-8s bloom would be more than enough for DDs. BBs on the other hand should really have their bloom significantly extended. 15-20s might be ok for cruisers.

So... WG basically decided that the game needs more sniping? That being said, from what I heard, WG stated that they don't plan any "preliminary buffs". They'll monitor the situation (like, as we know, they keep monitoring Super League and state of IJN DDs - and both are ok ). Basically, unless the change is a real change in mechanics rather than something akin that mutilation they performed on German DDs, WG seems dedicated to rendering certain ships unplayable. However, seeing how long it takes them to bring about this change, perhaps they are not completely brain-dead and they actually do think about the issue about HOW SF should be removed. After all, even barring compensatory mechanics (shortened bloom time) there are many things that could be considered removing stealth fire, for example: Armored Warfare's "briefly rendered for target struck by your shell but still not lockable" would be a stealth-fire removal too: the target would have a hard time aiming and the position wouldn't be even revealed to anyone else BUT there would at least be something to walk your shells to rather than just muzzle flashes appearing over open sea.

So. Wargaming changed the rules of SL - after the event started and for less beneficial for the players. They had their reasons (or at least their stated reasons) in the form of people abusing the system. Announcement can be fount here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/74843-super-league-modified-mission-conditions/page__pid__1664519#entry1664519 Their reasoning for the change was as follows: They also included the following: My question to Wargaming is: what is your lie? - is the lie that you're monitoring the situation? If you do, you'd easily noticed that the most obvious result is Super League matches NOT HAPPENING AT ALL alternatively - is the lie that you planned to react accordingly based on the results? For weeks no change was made that would revive Super League! Despite many people getting to R1 since the original announcements, SL is dead because current rewards are neither profitable (less than 30% of what they were) nor do they reward good play (if someone wants to get them, the actual enemy is the team: losing is just as good as winning as long as you manage to outplay your teammates) or finally - is it a lie that your change was ever done to make SL more enjoyable - and the only real reason was to make sure that you're not going to really give out any of the PROMISED rewards? You didn't support fair play and fun - you killed both and pretty much got rid of Super League. This is very obvious and you're doing nothing to fix it. This leads to a pretty obvious conclusion: it's impossible for all three to be true, you either don't monitor the situation AT ALL or you never planned to take any actions or, finally, you didn't want Super League to be alive, fun and fair: you wanted it gone. Which is it? What was the biggest lie? Or maybe there is something I don't see, some greater wisdom that makes non-existent anti-teamplay Super League somehow more fun and fairer? Is there any WG employee who even has the courage to as much as answer to this thread and explain company's policy towards Super League's death? Doubtful seeing how any feedback under the announcement got silently ignored - but, who knows, maybe someone in WG actually has a bit of honor after all?

The presence of the skill wasn't pleasant, but people didn't seem to be using it properly - Ranked or no, lack of communication where it comes to using this extra information just made it much less important.

Never noticed something like that... If you sit there waiting, you have the priority. It's just that the games are not starting at all - people play one game, it's usually less than satisfying and many just don't feel like re-clicking the battle.

I've had a screenshot with 70 minutes once. Seen one with 90. Basically, I'm pretty sure it takes a good day to even have one match starting in the whole primetime (although I admit I never tried sitting from 17 to 22 to check that

It's not doublons (gold) - it's XP. And you can insta-halve it for 200k credits (silver). And skill reset is another thing entirely...

Well, the more time passes, the more obvious the result is since more and more players reach R1 and despite that SL remains dead. When the announcement first appeared, it was still realatively early in the Season with relatively small potential player pool.

1. To jest gra, według zasady 1 gracz -> 1 okręt. Oczywiście, że niszczyciele są potężniejsze niż "w realu", ponieważ w grze są równoważnym przeciwnikiem dla innych klas (a przeciwko pancernikom to według pierwotnych projektów są wręcz kontrą) a nie tanią jednostką której po prostu można wystawić nieporównanie więcej niż nawet krążowników, o pancernikach nie wspominając. 2. To jest gra, w której maksymalny czas bitwy to 20 minut. Oczywiście, że sytuacja, w której dwa okręty ostrzeliwują się przez 1,5 godziny i żaden nie wyrządzi drugiemu szkody kompletnie nie pasuje do tej koncepcji chociaż "w realu" bitwy morskie były wielogodzinnymi przedsięwzięciami gdzie okręty ostrzeliwały się, często na odległościach takich, że wroga horyzont zasłaniał, a 5% celność u battleshipa byłaby niezwykłym wyczynem. 3. To jest gra. Służy do grania, nie jako symulator realistycznych bitew morskich. Dlatego pływa się i zatapia wrogie statki przez 20 minut, zamiast strzelać - głównie w wodę - przez pięć godzin a potem drugą połowę (kolejne 5 godzin) bitwy oglądać ze statku który zasadniczo wciąż pływa, tylko że stracił wszystkie główne baterie i trochę się przechylił więc nawet jak coś ci zostało, to nie masz jak tym wycelować we wroga.

You didn't even read the rest of what I've written about that, have you.

This was a problem in the old times when there was no engine penalty for hugging the line - border surfing was making people harder to hit, letting them seemingly accelerate and stop much quicker than normally possible. These times disappeared with the introduction of engine power penalty. Now it really doesn't pay to be stuck on border. I don't feel like there's anything that needs to be done about that now. Especially since I don't really see anyone trying to do that - there are people who run into the border (I myself do at times) but they all (me included) seem to always try and get out of it asap with some very unlucky sods forced to stay glued (and ultimately almost immobilized) when making a turn would be a suicide.

This. There is no damage for humping shipwrecks BUT some unluckily inflicted DOT effect (generally fire, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't miss hitting him with a torp ) can just keep chipping away at your teammate's hp pool even if you're dead already.

And then there are those guys who teamkill YOU and then go into hissy fit themselves Bonus points when they were torping in a ship that literally had no range to even theoretically hit some enemy from that position...

Unfortunately, that would also require the one teamkilled to receive 0XP and 0Credits when teamkilled as such a system is just open to abuse. I can imagine people TRYING to get teamkilled at the end of a match since that's just free signals and camos, right? If you run a full complement of rare ones, that starts to be tempting... Imagine a DD division torping each other at the end to re-use their expensive stuff... Sure, you could pile up precautions (not working if tk by divisionmate or by self) but... well. As to some people who'd like bans for TK - well, I must disagree here. For repeated TK - ok, might be, but a single teamkill resulting in a ban? That's 1. Just too harsh, accidents happen in the heat of the battle. I've personally managed to torp an ally once on my way to Rank 1 this Season... And in a very unambiguous situation at that - I just managed to miss where friendly Sims was sailing, I cleared an island and torped and then I saw he was right behind me... it was obviously my fault all the way but frankly, if such a thing meant a 24h ban like some claim, I'd feel wronged by such drastic measures - it was, after all, just one mistake. 2. Open to abuse by griefers. While torps launched from behind are careless, there are situations where an ally, while technically capable of running into the torps, would need to perform some really, really ridiculous maneuver to do that. People often fire torps in these situations and I don't really blame them (in fact, I occasionally find myself doing that too) - the risk they're taking is ever so slight and giving up on torping in every situation like that would hurt the team and chances of victory. If, however, such an ally were a griefer, knowing, that a tk equals a ban... yeah, I don't really believe in many griefers intentionally running into torps with current rules but with instaban? Yeah, we would definitely have some if that was the case. Ban for repeated offense might be a good idea. Ban for one teamkill/for any accumulation of damage resulting in pinkness? Nope. Not a good idea at all.

So, you launched torps from second line endangering your allies and you have the audacity to put the blame on them because they didn't realize they are being torped by a teammate!? The system, if anything, goes too easy on teamkillers like you since there's very little actual punishment even for repeated offenses... You with your attitude towards your victims are the cancer of the seas and most certainly deserve every single match of pinkness you've received. In fact, with this attitude it would be better for everyone if you were just permanently pink so that you only sink yourself next time you decide it's a good idea to torp through your allies' course.

Sync-dropping isn't much of a problem, but an ability to ENSURE that two divisions end up on opposing sides? Now, that's just too open for abuse... Most people would, as you say, just have fun sinking their friends but there would also be these couple guys who decide "hey, there's a secondary hit mission, let's go sit side-by-side in the furthest corner of the map waiting for secondary hits to accumulate". Sure that would be a bannable offence but not all cases would be so obvious and easy to determine... Ensured place in opposing team is just too convenient for people who'd like to abuse the system. As for bigger divisions - I also disagree. Even 3-people divisions have a tremendous impact on the game. 4-people ones... 1/3 of a team... no, sorry, most people play mostly solo and the game needs to be enjoyable for them too. Everything being decided by big divisions isn't the way.

1. ANOTHER person doesn't read the rules and comes asking this question!? 2. You can get your containers in the Super League, that is: Ranked for people who already cleared the Season and got to R1. Super LEague is played with T5. 3. #2 is a lie because after rewards were nerfed in the most brain-dead and teamplay-destroying way possible, Super League is dead and nobody plays it since a draw in "will I outplay my team to get a - probably useless - container" roulette doesn't seem worth waiting times that (unless you're really lucky) tend to be well in excess of an hour (if a match is found at all, that is).

Well, SL is dead so it's very unlikely for him to have any significant number of R1 matches. Well, it COULD be true if he made it to R1 very, very fast, while playing among very strong players (the ones that advanced equally quickly)... but that seems really unlikely for someone with 50% Random WR%. So I think it can be safely assumed that these 500 battles are pretty much all on the way to R1, not while sitting in there.

There are actually 2 full lines of gunboats. And one of torpboats. I heard there were supposed to be german DDs too but it's hard to say what they are since they never got launched, it seems Your problem isn't people being overly protective of their class. It's that you're the only person who considers your arguments sound. The best parts are where you argument that it's natural for BBs to survive more since they're the bik stronk shibs. And where you claim that you don't want to nerf smoke, just remove the viability of shooting from them... ...and yet you also claim that shooting from smoke is almost always a waste of time? So if it's not viable as it is, why do you want to nerf it? Oh, but you also don't like other ships making use of DD smoke - but (setting aside the fact that finding a good place to offensively smoke up is a challenge of its own) once again, that contradicts your claims that this is a no-skill mechanic since other ships shooting from smoke usually means that their DD used her smoke to cover them and that is actually one of the better displays of skill and team spirit I have seen in this game so far. It's one thing to dislike smoke meta or stealth firing (you are a fan of stealth fire from open sea being removed, if I'm not mistaken) - the problem is that somehow people like you never seem to care about how to make other playstyles more viable: they just see things they don't like and they want them nerfed to oblivion. Oh, and also - you really, really want to force people to play DDs in a particular way. No pew-pew with their small guns, and definitely not from smoke or range-invisibility... You have a very definite, dogmatic view of how the DD play is supposed to look like and you want everyone to agree with you... Guess what: