fnord_disc

I agree with this topic. I don't see why the game should prohibit you from firing your guns even if they're trained in a different direction. This is very common on Japanese destroyers because of the slow turret traverse. As soon as you make any kind of maneuver, the aim is off, but you'd still hit from close range. I think that if the player really wants to somehow fire his gun no matter what they're aimed at, he should be allowed to.

Yeah, I've gotten stuck a couple of times in very similar situations (parallel to the coast line). I think most coasts qualify for this actually, it's not really about specific places on the map. Usually the ship can move very slightly, but nothing you do actually gets you off whatever it is you ran aground on. I'm not sure how the depth map works and whether it simulates outlying rocks or not. If it simulates outlying rocks, then maybe those should be removed. If it doesn't, it's probably a general question of the getting stuck mechanic. Maybe if the ship is parallel to the coast and stuck it could drift back into deeper water, slowly, on its own? Like, to the side. Drift off the sandbank or something. It's always possible to unstuck yourself if you hit the coast at angle. It's only if the inertia carries you sideways into the coast line.

Once again, the root of the issue is that the OP does not understand the game.

Torpedo reload should be drastically reduced in tier 6-10, not increased. The aim assistance doesn't really matter much. You have to look at the map and predict enemy course changes during the 30-45s it takes your torpedoes to get to the target anyway, so the deflection marker is a rough guideline at best. Once I figure out how I can mod the crosshair I'll write myself a custom deflection marker that displays angular acceleration and some other useful information. I agree that the low tiers reload a little too fast. 40s on Minekaze means you can send torpedoes into every waterway on the map just to make it impassable and still have it reloaded by the time a target is close by. Maybe the reload could go up from 1m to something like 1:45 or 2:00 for Tier 10. To be honest, the World of Tanks comparison means I should have immediately ignored you. No idea why I'm replying seriously anyway.

Yes, I agree. This very thread would not exist if the OP had understood his mistakes when he got sunk instead of blaming it on the balancing.

Dark Souls is an excellent comparison, actually. Dark Souls is also difficult and requires some very different skills compared to other games, but when you die in Dark Souls you almost always understand why you died without needing a guide or outside help.

OP, you write a lot, and you seem to think you're some kind of renaissance man combining fancy rhetorics with advanced analytical abilities, a reincarnated Leibniz. But none of your logic has any value. None of your arguments hold water, because you misunderstand the skills this game requires and what it is designed to reward. There isn't a thread like this here where there isn't some kind of World of Tanks comparison. Anybody who makes such a comparison at any point is immediately not worthy of attention.

Give us the results and data for that and we will talk. Until then this is meaningless rhetorics.

Actually, I don't agree with this. In online games - hm, yes, I suppose. But Dark Souls requires a very significant skill base and it's one of the most remarkable games ever made. It doesn't change the fact that his observations are based on very fundamental misconceptions. The comment I made about the torpedo warning was satirical, if you weren't able to tell. When I'm in my cruiser and I see a destroyer 6km out to my flank my a 90° degree turn followed by a 180° into smoke, he obviously launched torpedoes. All I have to do now is reduce speed to 3/4 and make a 1/2 turn. Everything will miss. The player must be expected to understand that based on his own common sense, or we can dispense with the entire tactical aspect of this game and all play Worms.

Now, this is actually a start. I agree with this, but it deserves to be explained more. Right now the game has a very steep learning curve because it's very tactical and requires a lot of foresight and teamplay. Almost all blanket complaints in this forum are there because those people didn't understand the skills that the game requires and they didn't understand the mistakes they made when they died. Because they don't understand their mistakes without having them explained to them, they conclude that some class of ship is by design unbalanced, which is not the case. The discussion should be how the player can be brought to the realization, "Yes, okay, that was a pretty dumb mistake" without needing these topics for every little thing. Nerfing specific things does nothing to fundamentally improve the game at this point.

You wrote a lot, in volume, and I apologize if this offends you, but your complaints are based on a very fundamental misunderstanding of how this game works. They are all invalid.

In my opinion the warning sound for torpedoes should be removed. Just exit the sniper view and you will see them.

You're not designed and supposed to have a chance in a battleship wandering off alone into the wild. Nor with two battleships. If the entire team runs off in one direction, you have no choice but to go with them or to convince some cruisers to escort you using the chat function kindly provided by the game. If nobody will escort you to the other side of the map, you have to abandon it or you will die. Whether you win or lose the other side of map, whether you manage to decap any enemies that cap you... all that depends on the decisions you make later in the game.

You don't understand this game, and your examples are ridiculous. Mistake. My solution would be to shoot down the enemy shells — oh, wait, that's not possible, because your analogy doesn't work.

Having to micromanage multiple teams in the heat of battle would increase the load on the player even more though, and if you look at the other threads, even the current load is unpopular with many. I like the system that was proposed here too, and I agree the current system is silly, but it should be something that doesn't require too much micromanagement.

This is a big wall of text for what is essentially just another nerfpls thread. I know you tried to make this eloquent and well-argued, but thats the simple truth of it. Nobody ever seems to realize that at this point you've already made your mistakes and you're taking torpedo hits because you made those mistakes, not because you can't dodge them. Very few people who play this game as CB testers with me seem to understand that this game has very little to do with dexterity, quick fingers or reaction times like WoT. WoT is just a first person shooter with some wonky movement and spotting mechanics. This is a tactical game and in your example the battleship gets sunk because of tactical mistakes - and it deserves to be sunk. I keep saying this crap in a million topics, but if you're hoping to run off and see how things work out, this is not the right game for you. Everyone seems to expect some kind of FPS derivative with ships and that's why they want carriers nerfed, comparing them to artillery all the time. Did your tank ever shoot down an artillery shell?

You could always make maps that have limited matchmaking. Open sea maps for BB/CV/CA (even CA is borderline, but DD is pointless). Night battle maps for DD/CA and maybe the odd silly BB.

If they both lay a smoke screen it will run out before the cap ends. Just kill them then. And if you waste your whole salvo and then, surprise!, a destroyer is 5m away from you... Well, you were successfully ambushed, gg wp. I agree that T3-5 destroyers are very strong, but the smoke screen seems fine to me. It only has 3 charges stock, not unlimited...

You only need one really good salvo to sink the destroyer. Blind-fire at 300 meters isn't hard. The smoke screen runs out very quickly, and long before a cap can finish. Once the screen is over, the destroyer is an easy target. Just turn away and wait 60s, support people elsewhere. And if multiple enemy destroyers are capping you and renewing each others smoke screen, just send torpedo waves into the smoke. They'll probably either sink from hits or leave the smoke during evasive maneuvers. Why is everyone so uncreative?

Why the hell did you drive into a damn smoke screen? You deserve to be sunk, wtf. I can see a point being made for reducing its concealment for big ships, though.

But this is already in the game. You have fighters on your carriers which are way faster than enemy torpedo bombers. Just look at the map and go kill the torpedo bombers once you see them. And hitting 1 torpedo is no big deal in my opinion. Did you take note of how long it takes for the torpedo bombers to get back and do another run? If you torp bomb enemy battleships 3x per battle for 1 torpedo each, then you're basically worthless to your team. I kind of agree that the actual damage values are quite random because of dispersion. I definitely don't agree that DDs are overpowered. In early tiers they're very strong, but in Tier 6 and higher getting into a decent firing position without dying miserably is not easy.

Well, yeah, that was the strategy. But the reality of it is that Scharnhorst and Bismarck both had to fight capital ships and the Italians fought capital ships as well, so...

It was mostly design faults which cost the British their battlecruisers at Jutland and Denmark Strait. It was the result of poor armor protection against plunging fire, bad magazine protection, and just simply bad luck. There are numerous battles between battleships that dragged on for a very long time, eventually reducing the ship to a burning wreck that still somehow floated. The Fusos, Hiei, Kirishima, SoDak all took massive damage from enemy gunfire and torpedoes and still floated for a while. Lützow was still floating for a long time before she had to be scuttled after Jutland. SoDak even made it home looking like Swiss cheese. The vast majority of battleships were not sunk by a single shell derping into a big powder keg, but sinking from 5-10 torpedo hits is perfectly normal. And it's not really true that they were held back because of their cost. The Japanese held theirs back in expectation of the big kantai kessen, but Americans and Europeans used their capital ships a great deal. Battles between capital ships aren't rare either, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. They were only rare in the Pacific, but considering the few capital ships that the Axis had, they were common in Europe.

I apologize for the personal attack. The game should precisely not be geared towards enthusiasts and naval buffs. I want to play a game, with normal people and normal friends who don't know the armor penetration values of Type 91 AP shells at 40° firing angle. Yes, I want as much historical accuracy as possible, but more than that I want a good game with warships and a healthy community. If your acquaintances can't look at this as a game instead of a simulator, I don't really want to play with them anyway.

Myougi and Senjou are famous mountains, so they are equally as plausible as Takao, Atago, Ashigara... That no historical ship was ever called Myougi or Senjou doesn't make those names less realistic. I could live with having a note in the ship's description saying that the ship's name is not based on extant documents, but I see no reason to turn them into anonymous project numbers. This is not a history simulator. Inaccurate "historical" information from the Kantai Collection franchise is already distorting many discussions even on this very board, so I don't really care if "knowledgeable" people would have to fight ignorance. That's what's happening everywhere, all the time, anyway. People will edit those wikipedia articles back, they will talk to the people who don't know better. That's what scientists have to deal with every single waking minute of their lives because there are books about "quantum healing". Your anger sounds obsessive and autistic to me.