fnord_disc

You don't care about balance. You're just upset someone is hitting you that you can't fire back at. DEAL WITH IT.

Uh, right, Kawachi isn't tier 4...

What counts for placement is broadside weight in my opinion, and the Helgolands match Kawachi and SoCal perfectly. So I agree.

Thank you for the screenshot of Trap. Meh, another symmetrical map...

All books agree the NoCals are a treaty ship.

I think that all nations designed their battlecruisers correctly for the role they had in mind for them. It's just that the role they had in mind for them sometimes simply didn't stand up to reality. Germany designed their battlecruisers for the main battlefleet, as scouts, vanguard, whatever, but in direct conjunction with battleships. They did this in the war and they did it well. The British primarily saw them as a counter to armored cruisers, commerce raiders, and others like that. They were never designed to fight battlecruisers and battleships for any length of time. When the British ships acted in their role, they did so well. Falkland Islands is a good example, or Heligoland Bight. I think the error was Fisher's insistence that a ship with big guns and no armor could work. But these battlecruiser on cruiser engagements are rare, and when British battlecruisers had to engage German battlecruisers or battleships, they failed.

Well, NoCal is a treaty ship, as is SoDak, which will also be at Tier 8. But I never doubted that... Let me quote myself. --- Both Tiger and Kongo are at least equivalent. Originally I was going to say Tiger was equivalent and Kongo was better than Derfflinger, but that would have led to an endless discussion about whether 70mm of belt beats 2" of caliber in the main battery + 2kn of speed. I don't really have time for that. So I will say the are "at least equivalent". The rest depends on the combat situation.

That looks like really good matchmaking to me. Average tier is, what, 5.3-ish? It doesn't get much better than that.

Destroyer torpedoes or plane torpedoes?

What are you saying? That Seydlitz is a better ship than the cats because it damaged them? Seydlitz was heavily damaged at Dogger Bank and it's almost miraculous that she survived Jutland. I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that German battlecruisers were very sturdy? I absolutely agree. Seydlitz alone is proof of that. Is it that they were the best battlecruiser designs? I definitely don't agree. I was talking about the gun+shell, but I guess I never said that. Yes, the shells were the problem.

None of the European powers got beyond the drawing board in their advanced designs. Only Japan and the USA actually started building those 40k+ modern battleships and battlecruisers, and they were all culled by the WNT. so Germany had huge ships on the drawing board. Okay. Everyone did. German navy enthusiasts can cite the superior quality of German gun-making (widely acknowledged by the British after the war) all they want: a lighter shell even at high velocity has at best comparable penetration to the slower, larger shell. The reason German 30.5cm guns compare so favourably to the British 34.3cm guns is not because the concept of high-velocity, low caliber shells is always a good one. It's because the British 34.3cm guns were simply not very good. This becomes obvious when not the British 34.3cm guns are used for comparison, but the American 30.5cm guns. Depending on whether you look at World War I shells or World War II shells, American guns have similar or better penetration values compared to the German guns of the same caliber.

I think he's mainly talking about the Bayern-class. I don't think the other ships are particularly remarkable. I guess König was fine, but the 1911 Kaiser-class didn't even have centerline turrets. The British introduced this in 1909 with Orion, at least. I'm not really very fond of the early KM dreadnoughts. I can't point at any particular characteristic and say "this is why the ship stinks", but I'm not impressed either.

Hm. Well, they're definitely much better than the silly British paper ships, but in my opinion Kongo is a better ship than Seydlitz. I mean, you can argue that Seydlitz could probably penetrate Kongos 200mm belt with her smaller guns in the same way that Kongo could penetrate Seydlitz's 300mm belt with her bigger guns, and that Seydlitz has much better ROF and two barrels more, but Seydlitz is also slower and has no real hope of penetrating battleships...

OMFG I think I might have some business offers you're interested in. I'm also a Nigerian prince. Let's invest in oil!

I know those statistics. No, that's not what it proves when the game has mirror matchmaking. Without mirror matchmaking it wouldn't be certain. What it proves is that carriers have a disproportionate and unfairly large influence on the outcome of the battle, but it doesnt mean that they are easier. Thought experiment: Ultimately easy. Let's assume that carriers had a button that becomes available every 30s and when you click on it, it sinks an enemy ship instantly. No other input. No line of sight required, no other interface. Carriers are invulnerable. This ship would be the easiest ship in the game and would require no brain cells at all. You could put a weight on the mouse botton for optimum results. But since the game has mirror matching, the enemy does the exact same thing, and in the end the winner is determined by minor net lag or whatever. All carriers would have roughly 50% win rate in this experiment, yet they're also the easiest class you could ever play. Win rate doesn't necessarily correlate to how easy a class is.

You know, I've said multiple times destroyers are underpowered, but hey, whatever man. Not being in danger is not the same as having an easy game. I don't think you underst-- OH! You're the clueless dude from yesterday! Sorry, not going to respond again :-)

If CVs are easymode, why do people have non50% win rate in them? We have mirror matchmaking. If carriers are so easy, they would be killing everything, then each other based on luck, and all CVs had 50% win rate. Funny how high the skill ceiling seems to go...

I approve of him?! I was trying to downvote him!

I do? I don't agree, but it doesn't really concern me, so I didn't comment on those changes. Can you give evidence of my statements to this effect? People were defending the buggy torpedo approach on the test server as super awesomely balanced when it would have killed the entire IJN CV line in a single stroke.

I never doubted that Midway and Essex overperform. Also, you don't seem to really understand much about game design and positive/negative reinforcement. That I personally favor negative reinforcement doesn't mean I don't understand how positive reinforcement works. Encouraging a support role and making a class boring are two different things, just as encouraging support and encouraging teamplay are two different things. Teamplay can be encouraged in many ways, and the rock-paper-scissors concept WG was unsuccessfully trying to implement is one such. It was supposed to encourage teamplay while at the same time letting all classes be damage-dealing classes in their own way. That pure support classes simply don't attract players can be easily demonstrated by using the mid-tier lights in WoT as an example, and after years of [edited]even WG has recognized this and introduced the high-tier lights, which have actual damage potential. The reason pure support classes exist in MMOGs is because those have extensive clan/guild systems which can systematically exploit pure buff/support classes without detriment to the player's enjoyment or game progression. A random-heavy game like WoWs can still demand teamplay, but it can't demand that players use pure support classes. They don't work. The idea behind increasing the XP for planes that were shot down was the same positive reinforcement that makes players want to shoot at enemy ships. It makes stuff go away. Two torpedo bomber squadrons are already dull because of the long flight times, so I use my fighters to spot destroyers. I don't get anything for doing this, except the faint chance that my win rate improves by helping by dim-witted teammates. But I do this because I'm bored by the long flight and refuel times, and giving me XP for this wouldn't make me do it more often. The only way, and I find it mystifying that you can even doubt me, is by giving all classes similar strike potential, just different strengths and weaknesses. This means destroyers and some cruisers need buffs. This means Midway needs a slight nerf. The mere suggestion that the concept of pure support classes can work in WoWs is utterly ridiculous.

Planning ahead, reading the map and coordinating with whoever is willing to listen is the only reason I play this game. I don't give a damn about dexterity. If you want to reduce it to a clicking contest, sure, I'm in... with an aimbot. No damage = no kills = boring. Won't play.

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration_%28WoWS%29 This page was last modified on 23 October 2015, at 12:26.

Cruisers and especially destroyers are underpowered and should be buffed. They are relegated to support classes. Support classes? Yes. And that's exactly what you want to inflinct on carriers as well, because you've suffered through cruisers and destroyers, and damn, those carriers have to suffer just as much as you have. Right? As for WoT: the reason for that is because those players are top tier every third-ish battle and can have decently motivating games. They have no reason to improve if that's enough for them. World of Warships has a flatter tier progression, and therefore punishment can work. If you think it doesn't, then great. We can just throw all hopes for teamwork out. I'm going to install an aimbot if we give up on teamwork, though, because I don't see why I should unironically play your desired snail-paced deathmatch shooter game.

WORLD OF BATTLESHIPS

Pain and punishment is the only way to educate players. Carriers do exactly this. Nothing else will force bad players to work together, regardless of how much you dream about it.