eliastion

This does sound a bit like a "please use HE dive bombers against me" situation, though, considering that they both do a lot of anti-AA damage and are the kind of planes that spend their most vulnerable phase (the attack run) almost directly over their target.

Problem is, said Shima will only occasionally get that "half" of flooding. Floodings are much, MUCH harder to inflict than fires, just as easy to stop and heal AND after the changes: - for BBs a single flooding deals more damage per tick than a single fire but less damage than two fires (and lasts less) - for cruisers and DDs a single flooding deals less damage than even a single fire (although lasts 10 seconds longer) Why is flooding so useless against cruisers? Are torpboats too powerful against Radar cruisers, perhaps? Personally I was in favor of making flooding less all-or-nothing. But not by means of removing the "all" part! It should be handled by making flooding more reliable but less crippling - instead it remained just as hard to inflict, just as easy to negate - but just plain weaker. I don't know what exactly should be done. If I were to come up with some lose ideas, it might be something like - "repaired" flooding, instead of disappearing, being changed to "minor leak" that deals 1/3 of normal flooding for the rest of duration - "repairing" flooding being delayed (unlike with fires) so that when you hit DCP the flooding enters the state of "plugging the leak" while still generating a few extra ticks of flooding damage and rewarding the flood (since, unlike fire spammers, a torp-oriented DD can't really spread the love and inflict new "sticking" flooding right the moment the first one was plugged) Basically - changes that would actually ensure that flooding - as hard to inflict as it is - always gets rewarded with some extra damage. But the changes introduce nothing of the sort. It's a straight nerf with the one and only exception being "a BB struck on both bow and stern with torps that inflicted flooding in both locations" - and even that only gives more damage per tick, the theoretical maximum is still lower. You say that the point wasn't to nerf torpboats - but that's the effect. Even if overall flooding damage numbers don't drop, this will only be due to floodings being ignored as a non-issue, just like a single fire on BBs and high tier cruisers is often left to run its course. Only it's very easy to start a fire - and pretty damn hard to start a flooding, so them ending up in the same "eh, just one, who cares" category just doesn't seem right at all. If getting to see all means of detection you're subjected to is "too much" then why don't you give us an option in settings to enable/disable this? Just like you can set which minimap circles you want to see. If it's too much information and screen clutter for someone, they could just disable it and go back to the "detection priority queue" display. There's also that thing called "alternative battle interface" - the extra information could end up there to be available at the push of a button rather than all the time. There are just so many ways to do this right with just a modicum of effort to let players access this - in many situations crucial - information. Sure there are scenarios where it may be helpful (especially, although not exclusively, to the special kind of players that sit still in smoke within Radar range of spotted Radar cruisers and with open line of fire to half the enemy fleet). Problem is - certain ships simultaneously get big unnecessary buffs against DDs, covering the only weakness their Radar had. Take Moskva - she has fast shells that are very good at hitting DDs. Dodging is much less viable than against USN cruisers and the Radar range is significantly better. The only reason why Moskva wasn't a complete menace was the relatively short Radar... and now she gets +20% Radar duration (plus a slight range increase) just like that. And it's even worse for lower tier cruisers that used to have 20 seconds of Radar - for them the increase is by 25%. This is a HUGE buff against DDs - and I think we can agree on the fact that DD's life in high tiers isn't exactly easy, right? And it's not like Moskva terribly underperforms and needs buffs either. Since WG likes to make some changes and look how things turn out - why isn't this applied here? Just introduce the spotting delay and see if it actually made the long-range Soviet Radar useless or if DDs now live too long - and only buff these Radars if the situation calls for that. Because the reality is that more often than not the only one to start shooting within the first few seconds is the Radar owner anyway - and Radar owners can still do that. When you exclude the time the allies would spend turning the guns and finishing reloads (if they were shooting other things in the meantime), the 6 seconds actually become maybe 2 or something like that for them as well - or even become completely irrelevant.

It's like this: New t6 costs more than old t6 but less than old t5+t6. New t8 costs more than old t8 but less than old t7+t8. New t10 costs more than old t10 but less than old t9+t10. When the patch hits, the t7, t8 and t9 get removed and you receive freeXP equal to Old t5 + Old t6 - New t6 Old t7 + Old t8 - New t8 Old t9 + Old t10 - New t10 As a result, you'll find yourself sitting on a nice pile of extra freeXP. This freeXP can, obviously, be used to speed up your grind of the new CV line (consisting of the old CVs ). But it won't be nearly enough to get to t10. To put it simply and without dividing it between ships: pre-patch: you have a whole line that's "worth" old_line_XP post-patch: you have a whole new line that's "worth" new_line_XP AND you also have old_line_XP - new_line_XP amount of freeXP So it's not like you get nothing to start your journey towards having the old-new CVs when they reappear - but to skip said journey completely you're going to need a lot of freeXP from elsewhere. It will actually be just paying the difference between XP cost of the old line and the combined cost of both new lines, you won't end up spending more XP than someone who just starts playing after the patch, grinds one line and then grinds the other one. But this difference to make up for between the single 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 line and two 4,6,8,10 + 6,8,10 lines won't be a small amount, especially since these ships are going to be more costly when compared to their equivalents from every-tier-has-a-ship lines.

@KazeAmaru There is no reason for USN CVs to be more expensive in XP than IJN ones - plus you have some extra freeXP for the fact that full line with even tiers is cheaper than the old full line and you actually do get the difference as freeXP. All things considered, you can easily swap the line for the USN one and you'll have plenty freeXP left over. This, however, only includes the ships themselves. As there is no option to refund captains for eliteXP, you're going to be stuck with experienced IJN captains and you'll have to get means for leveling new USN captains on your own. As for the balance between the nations, based on my personal testing and looking at values: - USN rockets are superior but not without their problems. When I was testing them, I came to a conclusion that the USN advantage is smaller than I expected. - TBs are better on IJN side. And not only because of the long-range (or even stealth) torping because, let's be frank: it's not really that useful unless you find a complete noob that sit still. Even the straight-sailing specialists are very hard to hit from so far away because your torps are painfully slow and you don't get the DD-style lead aid to help you with aiming. In fact, from the range where you'd need to drop torps it might not even be that easy to determine whether your target is actually moving or not! Although perhaps it's better on higher graphic settings. Still, IJN torps seem just more useful from the limited testing I tried. - IJN DBs are irrelevant. Yes, you can score citadels but you most definitely won't get a citadel on every bomb (and some ships seem almost impossible to citadel even when trying that in training room against immobile targets). Not to mention that even just hitting your target in the first place seems easier for USN DBs. But even assuming that the latter is just my impression... let's put it this way: Haku's DBs, full strike detachment drops 3 bombs. If every single one of them citadels, that's 8500 damage times 3: 25500 damage Midway's DBs, full strike detachment drops 3x2=6 bombs. If every one of them hits and penetrates, that's ~3733 times 6: 22398 damage Sure. The perfect drop from Haku deals over 3k damage more! Midway's DBs work on EVERYTHING while Haku's damage REQUIRES citadels that are basically impossible on many targets and hardly guaranteed on these where the possibility actually exists. And then there's the fact that Midway's DBs cause fires. All things considered, Haku's DBs seem a bit inferior to Midway even against targets that are PERFECT for Haku - and VASTLY inferior (or even outright useless) against everything else. There's just no contest here. In conclusion - Haku is relatively balanced against Midway as far as the first two plane types are considered: a bit worse rockets, better torps. I could work with that. But then come DBs - and in that slot Midway gets another viable weapon choice. Haku doesn't. I can understand that WG didn't really want to see new CVs one-shoting Kurfursts (and other viable targets for AP bombs) but the effect is just pitiful. It's just sad when the "competition" almost matches your "perfect scenario" damage output without suffering any of the limitations associated with your bombs being AP. Maybe if IJN DBs were really superior and the bombs significantly easier to land - I can imagine DBs flying higher so that you instantly go into diving phase without having to increase altitude first. But there's nothing like that. If anything, USN DBs feel easier to use. And easier to use + more reliable + causing fires + more hp on the plane really can't be balanced out by IJN's speed and slightly better alpha in the one absolutely perfect scenario where every hit is a citadel (requiring you to have the right target and to hit it at the right spot, at the right angle - all these being considerations irrelevant for HE bombs that just deal the pen damage practically wherever they hit on whatever target they hit). There's a good chance I'll stay with IJN for my IJN captains and for the torps, but frankly - I don't really consider this a rational decision at all. The power balance seems significantly skewed in USN favor. I really hope WG will address the issue in the initial balancing... although I have my doubts, considering that the disparity in performance between the DBs of both nations seems easily noticeable at a glance. You notice something's off just looking at the stats - so it doesn't seem like an issue that couldn't be fixed by pre-release balancing on test server already.

The necromancer has well over 26k battles. Normally I would suspect a bot. Then he necros a thread from 2015, writing in (whatever language that is) in English section... ...my suspicions have NOT been cleared in the slightest

There are going to be two CV branches (one of them somewhere in the future) going all the way to t10. They have less ships but these ships are worth more XP than "normal" ships of these tiers. The amount of XP "in" these two branches, while lower than than in two normal branches, is going to be MUCH larger than the amount of XP you had to grind through to get the old tX. And the difference between a full tX branch and the "even tier ships only" branch is actually going to be given to you as free XP when the patch hits. You can use this freeXP to skip part of the grind of the new branch when it appears - but it obviously won't be nearly enough. Now, if you want the new promised-for-somewhere-in-the-future branch, you can refund the old one and have more than enough freeXP to skip that grind completely. But to give the players TWO entire lines of CVs because they had one? That's... well, I won't say it's not possible for WG to offer something like that if they really wanted to - but it's not a very realistic demand. I estimate the chances of you getting what you ask for at far below 1%

1. Go tell that to all these people whining that they want a skill-based MM to always give them 50% chance of victory 2. But don't show them the actual patent, because what it's about is something else completely. According to the patent, you're not given an easier match (as in: one with better odds of victory) when you're losing. You're placed as higher tier, that's all. To put it simply: someone who lost a couple matches in a row would be guaranteed to be top tier after that. But there's a slight problem with that: if implemented, this solution would actually cause the bad players' WR to decrease even further. You see, a bad player doesn't really have a higher chance of victory when top tier. It's the opposite - being top tier gives you more power and more responsibility for the result. If you're a bad player and bottom tier, your chances of getting carried to victory are higher than if you're a bad player and top tier. Implementing the system described in the patent would lead to a situation where good players would usually be bottom tier and bad players - top tier. I could actually see some benefit from such a system (winning is satisfying even/especially when low tier AND potatoes that at least try would be less hopelessly outmatched when most better players would be in worse ships than theirs) but "bringing everyone's WR close to 50%" would not be the effect, whether you consider it a positive or negative one. Now, as for evidence. I can actually prove that, at the very least, the system from the patent is not implemented in WoWs. It's pretty easy, really - all you need is a good winning or losing streak, preferably at tier 7-8 where you can easily be both -2 and +2 tier-wise. If nearing at the end of the streak (and in first streak-breaking game) you're not constantly bottom tier (if winning) or top tier (if losing) in every single battle, then your MM is not controlled by the system described in the patent.

I'll tell yo a secret. It's possible to support/be happy about something and be against/unhappy about some other thing even when both happen at the same moment. Which isn't the case here, btw, because the CV rework hits the live server next patch while Soviet BBs are at a relatively early stage. In fact, aren't RN CVs more advanced? We've seen actual gameplay from them and the Development Blog talks about the related collection that's supposed to appear in 8.1. It seems like we're closer to seeing real British carriers than fantasy Russian battleships. And their debut even seems more closely linked to the disappearing CVs, them all being CVs and related to CV rework... So, let me fix your poll question: Do you support the introduction of historic ships and the removal of historic ships? Yes, i like the historic ships more than historic ships! No, i prefer to have more historic ships, instead of historic ones! I mean, they are happening almost simultaneously so you clearly can only be in favor of both or against both, right?

Those are your words not mine No? Your words were exactly: You were surprised that someone might consider a joint duration and damage-per-tick reduction a nerf. And your argument for why it wasn't a nerf was that people wouldn't see floodings as a threat that needs to be addressed immediately. So: not important enough. As for the rest... Ok, let me just put it this way: I play DDs a lot. From my extensive experience: - the last seconds of short-term Radars are much more painful than the opening seconds that got removed - decent DD player (including myself) caught stationary by Radar is a rarity and a rare f*ck-up of that player rather than something that "just happens" - USN cruisers' fire can be, to an extent (and depending on your DD) dodged near the edge of their Radar range (9-10km). Moskva's shells are much faster, however. And it's Moskva that got a duration buff to nail you longer - Minotaur just isn't a threat once you manage to finish your U-turn with some hp left over; the damage dealt by a Minotaur to a fleeing DD is so pitiful. A good player that knows where to aim can still whittle your hp little by little, a worse player will lose a gunnery duel against a kiting Akizuki pre 100mm penetration buff. Minotaur with Radar is scary in 1v1 due to the crippling damage it can potentially deal before you get to angle away - but that's a damage window that closes even if the Radar is still running, unless some extra circumstances appear (say, an island the DD would run into if keeping the angle towards Mino). Moskva, on the other hand, benefits from that 5-second Radar duration A LOT - an extra salvo (4 instead of 3) for the ship that is very good at dealing damage at long range, even to DDs, is a huge buff. Now, you bring up the KotS. And yes, I can imagine that in the context of a game mode where CVs spotting dominates the match, even good (well, I doubt there are any others in KotS...) DD players will suffer from being Radar-spotted in smoke cover they were forced to use due to enemy aviation. Congratulations. It seems like we did find a format where the proposed Radar changes do indeed favor DDs overall: it's the KotS. Perhaps there might even be some other tournaments too! Only I'm not quite sure if it will stay like this after the next patch, considering how different the aerial reconnaissance is going to become... For the closing note: I don't say that these 6 seconds of grace period are completely worthless and certain cruisers do become less scary: Des Moines gains a whooping 0,1km of Radar range and Worcester gets no buffs at all while they won't be transmitting your position for the first 6 seconds too. Whether Baltimore is better or worse off with 1km extra Radar range - that might be debated. But the buffs received by Soviet cruisers are very substantial, increasing their threat level by a significant margin. The weakness of soviet Radar was that the duration was short. And as a compensation for the situational "no position transmitting for 6 seconds" they get that single weakness of theirs addressed. For some it's as much as +25% duration.

Like this: *edited* Just because you're giving a choice doesn't mean that the poll is legit. If you want something a bit less humorous and more WoWs-oriented: Do you support the introduction of Soviet BB line to the game? a) Yes, I like seeing new lines of ships in the game b) No, I think we have too many lines already and WG should't be adding any new ones More specifically, in case of your poll, you ask two questions and the answers provided don't actually answer to either of the two! Your question sounds: Do you support the introduction of fictional/paper/fantasy ships and the removal of historic ships? This looks like one question but in reality there are two: 1. Do you support introduction of fictional/paper/fantasy ships? 2. Do you support removal of historic ships? These are two unrelated things of which the second one isn't even really the case considering that the "removed" ships are already announced to appear as the secondary lines for their relevant nations. But leaving that aside (since they will be gone for quite some time), you're asking two independent questions without providing the option to answer them independently. However, it actually gets worse, because your answers provided aren't simple yes/no either. They are: a) Yes, i like the fantasy ships more than historic ships! b) No, i prefer to have more historic ships, instead of fantasy ones! These are answers to a question "Do you like fantasy ships more than historic ones?" - and this is not a question you asked at all! So, in fact, you now have three questions: 1. Do you support introduction of fictional/paper/fantasy ships? 2. Do you support removal of historic ships? 3. Do you like fantasy ships more than historic ones? And then you assume that all three are going to have the same yes/no answer. Now, imagine a person that just loves ships and wants as many ships as possible in the game! This person - supports the introduction of new fantasy ships - is unhappy about temporary removal of historical carriers - loves all the ships, real or not, equally Such a person can't possibly give a valid answer in your poll: - If they answer "yes" then you'll understand that they like the removal of historical ships (false) and prefer fantasy ships over historical ones (also false) - if they answer "no" then you'll understand that they don't like the addition of fictional ships (false) and prefer historical ships over fantasy ones (also false) - they don't even get the option to answer in a way that shows their lack of preference between historical and fantasy ships (there's no middle ground, you demand they pick one or the other) Basically, it's a very poorly designed poll. And the kind of mistakes you made while designing it makes it also biased because you demand that people choose between - saying that they like fantasy ships more than historical ones or - saying that they are against both introduction of Russian BBs and changes to CV tech trees

Missing tiers in CV tree aren't the result of lack of historical carriers, though - it's the decision related to problems with providing a smooth and meaningful progression + the bad experiences with empty CV queues of the past (so WG want to concentrate all the CV players on even tiers). The ships removed are already promised to make a return as alternative branches (also on even tiers) so that the removed Taiho is most likely going to become a second IJN t10. This creates some unnecessary "paper" ships (some paper fillings would be unnecessary if the even-tier-only philosophy was there from the beginning) but it isn't some crusade against historical ships. And as for soviet BBs. Well, stronk Soviet navy, how could we not see them in a game that glorifies Soviet Union and celebrates the symbols of that criminal superpower on each and every occasion (while at the same time banning swastikas and rising sun flag). Personally I have a quiet suspicion that one of the reasons why they didn't keep (uptiered) Taiho instead is because of the Hellcarrier space skin that they would need to re-design for Taiho if they didn't want to face a crowd of pissed off spaceship-owners that were about to actually start seeing their special (and not cheap) skins only to have them suddenly removed (along with the old tX ship)

I'm not saying what these numbers should show. It's (obviously) not an easy task to design an automatically-determined aggregate number that would take in all the relevant factors and end up making any sort of sense - and I don't really feel like trying to do WG's job at this point. What I'm saying is much simpler: these values are worthless or, worse than that: misleading, giving players who try to consult them false information. I remember when I was a relatively new player and found myself almost picking an AA hull for Farragut because, hey, a nice AA improvement at the cost -1 in Artillery value... and yes, there was one turret less but so was the case on Nicholas that ended up shooting quicker and was overall more dangerous and fun to play after the upgrade (and was basically a straight-up upgrade even if there was one turret less)! "Must be USN thing, the DDs lose a turret but are somewhere compensated so that they guns either get better (hence the upgrade on Nicholas) or end up only marginally worse (hence sidegrade on Farragut)." It's nice that I figured out my mistake right away (and stopped taking these numbers seriously ever since) - but I'm a bit of a special case, with more affinity for numbers than the average person. But I'm pretty sure that most WoWs players aren't holders of technical degrees nor even interested in math. And it's precisely these less mathematically inclined (perhaps outright intimidate by lots and lots of numbers) that reach to their "friends" - the aggregate, easy to digest values for torpedo power, artillery and the rest... and then these people get mercilessly stabbed in the back by said "friends" that seemingly make things easier but in reality just provide potentially misleading information that you might or might not quickly uncover as utter bull. And that's before you encounter the problem of "ship comparison on loading doesn't necessarily show you the actual values" that means that the values aren't only misleading - the game can provide you with false ones in the first place! Funfunfun.

This gun configuration deals more damage. Much more, in fact - with both much higher DPM and significantly better penetration. Regardless of what the aggregate value in "artillery" tab is based on, the result is utterly worthless: a ship configuration vastly superior in terms of gun firepower is shown as inferior, completely defeating the purpose of having this value displayed anywhere at all. Answer: having this number at all if you can't get it right. THIS is more wrong than lack of accuracy of the algorithm determining the value itself, be it for rapid fire or big guns. The reality is that there are a lot of things to consider when evaluating gun performance. On one hand, this is why it would be nice to have an aggregate "artillery" number giving you some vague understanding of what to expect - but on the other, it only serves its purpose if the values provided reflect, even if only roughly, the actual in-game experience you can expect. If you take a ship that has almost 50% more "artillery" then you expect to be more dangerous with your guns compared to the lesser variant. And yet - you'd be very hard pressed to find any plausible scenario where the kagero's guns on Harekaze would be preferable to the Akizuki configuration, regardless of whether you fight enemy DDs, cruisers or BBs. While there are specific "small stats" that favor Kagero's guns, overall the disparity in favor of Akizuki config is tremendous... and yet the aggregate value shows something opposite: an appropriately big gap, yes, but in the opposite direction. The aggregate value that should be there to help a player make an informed decision without analyzing all the stats and playtesting... just lies to the players, spitting out a number that - regardless of how its derived - has nothing to do with the actual relative firepower granted by both configurations. It's not even that the algorithm failed to account for something and didn't properly show the gap: it showed the gap in the wrong direction. If WG can't make these aggregate numbers work, they should just remove them. Lack of information is better than misinformation - and that's what anybody naive enough to trust these numbers gets.

So, you claim that "Kagero hull" Harekaze has better firepower (and by a big margin, value 26 vs 18) than the version with Akizuki guns?

You went a little overboard. I don't think you need symbols denoting that you're spotted specifically by things like - a paper ship (after all there are so many on all tiers that makes the information hard to use) - a soviet ship - someone who went AFK to avoid a disaster But I appreciate the effort nonetheless

@Crusherheads: "I wanted a premium t7 CV, not a premium 8 CV." WG: "Here, get the full price in doublons if you don't like it." Crusherheads: "But my crystal ball told me that you're going to introduce t7 CVs later on, including premium t7 CVs, and that there will never be a doublon purchase option for them!" If you like the new Saipan, you can have her. If you don't like her, you can get the doublons. You can't have another t7 CV because there are no t7 CVs anymore (and didn't WG declare that CVs are going to stay even-tier-only thing? The "missing" CVs are going to return as alternative branches - also on even tiers). And as for getting a t8 premium CV - well, wasn't it said that at least some of these ships will make an appearance in (according to what seems to be the initial schedule plan) two months? Although the prices are going to be t8 premium prices so if you want a t8 premium CV for the price of t7 one, you're stuck with t7 premiums that you already have. The only people that really have solid grounds for claiming WG's unfairness are the people who bought premium CVs directly for money (not for doublons) and now get refunded with doublons (that are, obviously, less valuable than real money that can also be spent outside WoWs).

Devstriking someone might actually be more likely than just casually inflicting floods on both bow and stern, especially on IJN DDs... But that's beside the point. You were arguing that floods will deal more damage because they are not important enough to insta-repair and will get ignored. By claiming now that they would be more deadly to the victim, you directly contradict yourself (if they are more deadly, they will get insta-repaired all the more). Because, as we know, it's impossible to hit a moving DD. It can be easily seen in every battle - DDs are completely immune to damage unless stationary. The reason why it shouldn't be island-piercing isn't "because much realism" but because that would introduce more counterplay options. Go take your strawman out to the field and leave it there. If you expect/want to be Radared (you're Radar baiting!) but put yourself in a position where you're a sitting duck when picked up by said Radar, then sorry, but it doesn't really sound like you know what you're doing... and we were talking about coordinated teams, so a relatively high-level gameplay, right? So if people on that level really do reverse into caps to bait Radar and find themselves Radared while reversing/stationary then it seems like you're wrong about these initial seconds being that important at that level of play. If it was so suicidal, decent players wouldn't be doing that. So either - you're talking nonsense and it actually doesn't really happen at that level of play where coordinated teams could make the best of the opportunity or - it does happen but coordinated teams don't (or very rarely) actually manage to take advantage of the "first few seconds of death" after the Radar is activated, meaning that the 6-second grace period won't have that much of an impact And again - at the level where coordinated teams that would be able to concentrate fire within these first 6 seconds, people probably shouldn't be sitting in smoke when there's a Radar cruiser lurking around or completely unaccounted for for a long time. Moskva's Radar is (well, was) relatively short duration but very long range. Due to long range, it isn't really feasible to just keep out of that range completely - it locks out A LOT of the map if the cruiser is anywhere near the front. Due to short duration, however, getting caught by this Radar was less disastrous - you could live through it. Some time at the start was mostly "lost" because ships weren't usually pre-aimed at you (and many of the enemies are under threat by your allies and can't turn their hulls freely if they ddon't want to compromise angling). So the starting seconds of Radar usually aren't that bad. Then it gets worse - but the Radar runs out just when things really start getting bad. Moskva's Radar usually means some damage but not a crippling amount. The extra 5 (plus any % increase) seconds at the end, however, mean extension of the most hellish phase while the 6 seconds of grace at the beginning eliminate the phase were guns actually shooting at you are scarce because most need yet to turn. The changes make Moskva both more powerful individually (just straight-up buff in Radar duration + a slight range increase) AND a bit more useful to the team in DD-hunting (extended phase where people already have their guns turned towards the DD while the "hold your fire" 6-second phase is usually filled in large part by rotating guns). Sure, there are situations where these 6 seconds will be useful but more often than not - Moskva is buffed and DDs suffer from this change packet. Minotaur is notoriously bad (considering the supposedly good DPM and the option of having Radar) at solo-hunting DDs that are running away because a lot of shells will bounce, so your "testing" is worthless here. Minotaur that meets a DD charging at it gets the chance to inflict crippling damage basically only at the point where the DD makes a U-turn to GTFO. At the initial phase the DD is angled bow-first and at the latter part: the DD is angled stern-first. In both cases a big % of shells is going to bounce. The damage will still occur but it won't be that big. As it stands, Minotaur (in a 1v1 situation) is a ship that doesn't benefit all that much from good Radar duration since the high-damage phase (DD exposing broadside to make a turn) just won't be extended. It's a different matter when there are more enemy ships shooting, however (as it usually will be the case by the end of Radar) AND it's a bit different for ships with flat-trajectory HE shells... like, you know, Moskva, that actually has a reasonably good chance of getting a whole extra salvo off (with ~10s reload it matters if you can extend your Radar to maximum of 30 or 36 seconds). Also, "survival rate" sounds nice but most DDs don't have heals and even those that do have them can rarely get all that much hp back - damage suffered by DDs tends to stick.

If you reduced Zao's alpha by half AND increased reload by two, that would be a nerf to Zao even if more enemies would start ignoring her as a joke ship and shooting actual threats instead. Same (similar?) idea here with floodings. I believe that Radar is a very poorly designed mechanic, with extremely limited countrplay options, especially considering Radar ships with good concealment and the island-piercing capabilities of the consumable. I'm most definitely "target audience" who'd like to see a proper Radar rework. For me smoke is usually an escape mechanic rather than a place to make myself cozy - even when I'm playing gunboats. Any other strange assumptions? Who the hell stops in smoke while radar baiting? Who the hell sits still in smoke capping (in competitive at level with coordinated teams!) in a place where he can be both radared AND reached by shells from multiple enemy ships? Now, there are situations when even skilled players might find themselves frantically trying not to die. It might be that they, say, got long-range radared by a Moskva. Perhaps even said Moskva didn't know where they exactly were exactly, mind you - but now she does know. And so do all her friends on the red team. The range of Radar is basically unescapable but fortunately the Radar only lasts for 25 seconds unless extended by relevant modules... oh, wait, now it's base 30 seconds instead. And somehow, from my experience, the volume of fire doesn't exactly decrease towards the end of the duration. And you know what? These salvoes fired within the first couple seconds aren't really that scary either. There's not that many of them as most guns are still only turning in my direction and the people who start shooting already often lack accuracy at first shots... But the volume of fire doesn't exactly decrease towards the end of Radar duration and some of the nastiest hits can actually come after Radar elapses - these are the parting shots fired right before I disappear again. Somehow I do have that feeling that the extra 5 seconds at the end won't be a nice experience.

No, it isn't. In competitive, on level where there there is some coordination to speak of, I wouldn't expect many people finding themselves Radared while stationary in smoke. Nerf are buffs because the chance of being ignored increases when something ends up nerfed to the ground. Noted

- only if it's a smoke camper that decided to smoke up and stop with Radar cruiser around - only if you know he's there, know that he's going to be radared and therefore you're aiming at him already. In most cases this only applies to the ship using the Radar and - guess what - that ship actually gets visual right away. But there are range and duration increases for a lot of Radar ships. Well, we're still talking hp loss per tick just a bit short of two fires - and this coupled with severe mobility impairment. Sounds like a solid reason for insta-repair. And if there's anything else going on (second flooding, something burning, a gun damaged or whatever) then it becomes basically a no-brainer... But even if you were right - are you seriously arguing that making floodings less dangerous (dealing both less damage and disappearing faster) isn't a nerf!? It's, like, the very definition of nerfing. The only scenario where it's not a nerf is when you flood a BB on both stern and bow and that BB is out of dcp but the cooldown is below 40 seconds already.

Huh? Where exactly do you see something allowing DDs to actually deal damage from flooding? Flooding still remains powerful enough to warrant isnta-repair. There's just nothing worse to wait for when you suffer flooding - you get flooding, you repair, there's very little reason why anyone would decide to refrain from insta-repair... It would be a different thing if there was some special convoluted rule guaranteeing a couple ticks of flooding damage (as in: flooding effectively not being repairable for the first couple seconds of its duration). But there's nothing like this. All there is is a straight nerf to flooding damage in both damage-per-tick and duration departments. It won't lead to flooding dealing damage more often - it will just deal less damage on the rare occasions where it does stick.

Slap a Radar-improving special module on top? Rip anyone who's on the same map during cyclone...

They should all just be signals popping up next to the "detected" symbol. No priority - just all relevant symbols should be listed. Any other way just obstructs crucial information you should be getting.

Are there any plans on compensating the "heavy hitters" DDs that have long CD on torps but high flooding chances? Ships that can spam torps on short cooldown, especially ones with stealthy torps, probably won't feel the changes much but then we have Shimakaze - a ship that lands torps pretty rarely, often just one (or more but still only on bow because there's relatively a lot of time to react to them). The upside was a high flooding chance - but now a single flooding, even if it doesn't get damagecontrolled right away, is much, MUCH less valuable... and Shima torp specifics are such that while the flooding chance is good, the chance for scoring two floodings at once is much smaller than for the competition. While I don't think any DDs (even Kagero with specifically used torp reload) really depended on floodings as the primary cause of damage, these changes seem like a relative nerf to IJN torpboats - a branch that... let's say: doesn't really need nerfing. Also, I don't know how I feel about the across-the-board buffs to Radar. I don't know how much the grace period of 6 seconds is really going to make up for it - it sounds a lot like "time for people to aim their guns at you" and the long-range Radars actually get more duration to (over)compensate. As we know, the level of danger (especially for long-range Radar that you can't realistically run away from) actually increases with time. Previously it was possible to survive the long-range short-duration Radar, to the point where Russian cruisers weren't as scary for DDs as the USN ones. Now - the early damage won't change that much, first seconds were always spent on turning turrets - the late damage will be increased due to longer duration Sounds like another (on top of increased ranges - though on t10 by a relatively insignificant margin) buff to Radars with a trade-off that only really matters if the enemies know where the DD is already and have their guns pre-aimed. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing much shooting in the first 6 seconds anyway.

Unless you sell the GF Zeppelin, you keep both the ship and the camo. The "permanently lost" camos are a WG's f*ck-up solution specific to situations where you sell a ship, the camo gets automatically refunded for doublons (even if it was not sold for doublons in the first place) but once you get the ship back, the camo is not purchasable. Don't ask me why they don't leave these special camos to be sellable separately (just temporarily make them tradable just like oyu can sell normal camos) OR - perhaps more advantageously to themselves - don't just add them to Arsenal to be purchasable so that you could immediately buy your camo back (it's possible to get camos for ships you don't own and don't have researched). That would actually likely boost sales quite a bit - I bet there would be plenty people interested in CV camos that never looked their way before (I mean, who would really bother with special CV camos - no matter how nice looking - when the only time you could've looked at them during normal gameplay is pre-battle countdown). And I doubt if the initial popularity of CVs (and - potentially - special camos for them) is really going to last until the next Prima Aprilis (if the space camos appear then again), not to mention the faraway Halloween of 2019. You only get freeXP for CVs you have - the accumulated XP isn't changed to freeXP. So I'm pretty sure that the most advantageous (assuming you want to play Midway from day one of rework) for you would be: 1. Research and purchase Midway 2. After the rework hits, sell Midway, you'll receive enough credits and freeXP to instantly purchase it again 3. Research and purchase Midway again. Unless you currently have EXACTLY enough XP to research Midway AND no XP accumulated on t8 USN CV, you'll get some freeXP for free this way because. To put it simply: Imagine a situation: pre-patch Lexington (elited, 3 000 leftover XP) Essex (elited, 2 000 leftover XP) Midway (stock, 0 XP) this should lead to post-patch Lexington (elited, 5 000 leftover XP) Midway (stock, 0 XP) Now if you sell the Midway, you'll get full credits+freeXP compensation. If you instantly re-purchase the ship, you'll see Lexington (elited, 0 leftover XP) Midway (stock, 0 XP) 5000 freeXP Because you sold Midway for freeXP but then researched it using 5 000 leftover XP that pre-patch was lying around on Lexington and Essex, effectively this little speculation allowed you to convert 5 000 locked XP for free. Although it seems like it would only work once because selling+unresearching a ship doesn't give freeXP if you do it for the second time. So no even if you have 5 million XP on Essex and Lexington, you can't just sell and buy Midway over and over again until everything's converted to freeXP