El2aZeR

Which is different to just shooting the superstructure or going for bow overpens... how exactly? Tell me, where is the balance that allows a destroyed secondary/AA gun to just eat shell after shell? Make otherwise damaging hits completely void? That despite RNG favoring you for once and aiming correctly you still do not get rewarded? You can argue the supposed balance in this change both ways. Also it's ironic that you pick those examples, BB overpopulation is a direct cause of why radar exists and why CVs can be as successful as they are.

HE shells will still shatter on contact with thick enough armor, which includes most deck/upper belt and all main belt armor. The damage they deal to destroyed modules is also going to be extremely pitiful. According to you we should remove the superstructure as a damage zone because it is the one thing you can still take damage from when bow camping. *edit As for Moskva, nowadays you only need to bow camp with that too. There is nothing skillful about bow camping. Braindead monkeys can pull it off as is proven in this game. All this change does is make these die a little faster assuming the torp bulges do not go through which they will not apparently.

This ofc depends entirely on the initial distance. On a successful ambush at close range Z-52 will bite the dust first unless you get killed by torps. If you're coming in at max spotting range it is indeed better to disengage.

I don't particularly like giving up both smoke and DFAA either. Z-52s I can just rush down with little issue after all. Unless ofc he has backup, but that's not a fight one should take in the first place in that case.

AP bombs will only cause overpens on DDs which with USN CVs are 800 damage apiece. The tech tree manual drop is very accurate, being only slightly bigger than a T10 DD, which at the same time means that it is extremely easy to dodge. DFAA will cause the manual drop circle to actually be larger than the auto drop circle. Even with auto drop though you are unlikely to cause much damage when under DFAA. You'd have to be rather unlucky to get hit even once. I think the most damage I've ever gotten with AP bombs against a DD was around 5k. The theoretical maximum is 11.2k if I'm not mistaken. Usually I'm struggling to get more than two or three damaging hits per strike. Now USN HE bombs are an entirely different beast. Two squads can easily oneshot you.

DDs getting killed by AP bombs. I'm sorry but wat. (Unless ofc you are extremely low HP.)

It's just the same story as with CV auto drops. When almost everyone is abysmal the potatoes with the most automation in gameplay benefit the most. Clicking in direction of a grey marker is just a step below just clicking and expecting the average player to know the wonders of WASD is far too much after all. Honestly if the playerbase was even halfway skilled high tier IJN torp DDs would be unplayable. But then again they would've probably never have gotten nerfed this hard had that been the case in the first place.

Sure, it's a problem, but in an entirely different way. Namely that 1. spaced armor isn't supposed to be included according to the patchnotes and 2. the inclusion of torp bulges is the only stupid thing about this change (as I have already stated above). Try this on a GK e.g. instead and you will see nothing but the usual shatters (unless ofc this is actually some kind of bug, at which point there is nothing to worry about as it is not what the devs intend to do). What the OP however demonstrates is something that is great. Secondary and AA mounts, which BBs are covered in, no longer soak up damage like nobodies business, making the most braindead class even more braindead.

Let me get this straight. your premise is this: Whereas the actual change being tested is this: *edit

No, it's called absolutely boring bull that doesn't require a shred of skill nor intelligence. It's the reason why the high tier camping meta exists in the first place as clearly seen with low and mid tiers, where such miserable and pathetic plays aren't possible, being far more dynamic. And quite frankly nobody in their right mind shoots a BB when other more juicy targets are available. This is the inherent problem with "tanking for the team" in this game, namely that it doesn't work. You cannot force the enemy to focus only you and not that exposed teammate of yours. The ability to tank shells is an entirely egoistical trait as it doesn't prevent anyone on the enemy team to punish anyone else on yours. You are moving with your team to take map control and to keep within effective distance of your guns. Tanking has extremely little to do with teamplay, because every salvo that you tank is a salvo that could've gone to a squishy teammate instead, making it a misplay on the enemy's part, not good play on yours. Also to characterize shells now dealing damage to destroyed secondary and AA guns as the end of all angling is hilarious. "Oh, no, a Minotaur can now kill me within one and a half minutes if every shell is a damaging hit and I'm dumb enough to not know what heal is!" Realistically you will easily survive double that and if you're under fire that long you deserve to die. This is what happens every ing time a nerf that primarily hits BBs is proposed. Suddenly it's the end of all BB play, BBs will only camp now and pop the minute the smallest gun decides to shoot them. Everything must be exaggerated to keep BBs as the most braindead class to play by far. The only thing insane here is people like you still defending everything that makes the camping meta what it is. And now I'm questioning whether you even know what you are talking about. Tell you what, though, the last time HE couldn't shatter and dealt full damage regardless of hit location this game was ironically a lot more dynamic and playing BBs actually required some intelligence as bow camping could and would get punished hard.

That's implying said DD is dumb enough to smoke in such an encounte- OH WAIT.

No they won't, because they are the ones who will want to win. This change primarily affects bow camping potatoes who survive far too long or suiciding potatoes who survive far too long. Playing smart will for the most part still yield the same results. And if they quit playing BBs, that's fine too. It's not like BB overpopulation has been running rampant for over 2 years or sth.

The funny thing is that the game isn't actually getting more popular. Player numbers have been stable since ages. That means one of two things: 1. The average player simply stays bad. Wouldn't be particularly surprising considering the level of instruction this game provides. 2. The game draws in many new players but fails to retain them. Considering how long player numbers have been stable this is rather unlikely in my eyes. If you fail to retain your customers the market eventually dries up which obviously has not happened.

That's 500 shell hits on a single target with no heal usage. If a BB is this much out of position he deserves to die. Current BBs live too long anyway. And if you're afraid that this will make BBs camp more, I'm sorry, that changes the current situation how exactly? If anything this sounds like a great change to me. Bow camping BBs that have infested this game for so long will now go down in 3 minutes instead of 5+ under constant focus fire, which is a pretty good improvement in my book.

Meanwhile I don't see a reason to grind the YY. The idea of not being able to punish DDs with torps doesn't sit well with me. Personally I play Gearing as an ambush knife fighter, thus went all in on the guns (sans AFT ofc). That allows me to burst down almost any opposing DD in a straight up close range fight. I can more than understand why people don't like her tho. It's a very peculiar playstyle, but it works.

Personally I'd like to know how exactly this stuff works before I make any judgement on the off chance that the mechanics behind it are perhaps actually sound. As it stands though yeah, it sounds a lot like nonsense.

Wilkatis stated: To which MrConway replied: So... Do you even read bro?

On a more serious note, yes, the level of play is bad and has been for well over a year. No, nothing is going to change. If WG were inclined to do something against it they would've done so already.

Because as we all know statistics are oh so meaningful when it comes to potential match influence, especially on DDs. Oh, look, Clemson is among the worst T4 DDs, I guess she needs massive buffs! Salem is the worst T10 cruiser, buff please. Also DM in extension must be weak, too! NC 2nd worst T8 BB, BUFF! Fletcher is bad omg, NEEDS BUFFS! Let me tell you why Gearing stats are so bad, it's because she is among the oldest ships in this game, thus every potato has one. On the contrary Gearing is great if you know how to play her. For some reason she even got a massive buff recently by receiving Fletcher torps. She's also THE team utility boat, sporting USN smoke and DFAA. I found her speed to be a non-issue most of the time (if you pick your position correctly the enemy will have no choice but to run into you at which point your guns will tear most of your competition apart in short order) while her tendency to eat BB AP pens will hopefully no longer be an issue in the near future.

That is because high damage torpedoes are never capable of dealing full damage to BBs. Any bow/stern hit will cut your damage in half beyond the initial hit due to damage saturation (meaning your 20k damage torps will do around 16k on the initial hit and 10k on any subsequent ones). Hitting the torp belt on the other hand means torpedo damage reduction applies. Another reason why having high damage but bad hit probability is much inferior to mediocre damage but good hit probability.

Really? I can often dodge these even when caught broadside (and that's the 12ers. I don't even want to talk about the 20km ones). The concealment and spread on these things is so ludicrously bad that your torp broadside weight becomes moot because you will rarely hit more than one or two if your target has any brains (although most of the playerbase doesn't). The F3 torps meanwhile require you to practically suicide with all the radar that's around. And if there's a CV you may as well quit to port. Contrast that to Fletcher or Gearing where you can easily get multiple hits on a target when caught unaware. And they reload MUCH faster to boot. So despite their theoretical torpedo power in reality other DDs are capable of causing much more damage with their torps. IJN DD torps are just straight up bad, there is nothing good about high alpha strike and flooding chance when you struggle to get them on target. These are the worst DD guns in comparison to their contemporaries. That'd be fine if their torp power was scaled accordingly. Too bad it isn't. Thus they have bad torps AND bad guns. You need at least one of these things to be good to exploit a good concealment rating in a DD. Since IJN torp DDs have neither, their best-in-class concealment automatically becomes moot. If I get outspotted in my Gearing by a Shima I don't turn away in fear. I only know that dinner will be served in another 2 seconds. More like making teams lose by default. I have seen more default losses caused by having more IJN DDs than I have seen default losses caused by CVs. I'm not even joking. See 3 Shimas on your side while the enemy has Grozo/Gearing/Z-52 and you may as well quit back to port. It isn't a question of whether other DDs have more potential match influence, it's that all of them do because all of them are good at something whereas IJN torp DDs are good at nothing. @Saiyko can sing you songs about it. These ships serve no role, they're bad and/or outclassed at everything they do. As such they cannot be characterized as fine. A Shima on your team in lieu of any other contemporary DD on the enemy side is a massive liability and nothing else. And I guess making more and more low concealment, unpunishable BBs is fine because potatoes love to play them? I guess Lexington is fine despite getting bodied by any other T8 CV because she's popular in comparison? Popularity has nothing to do with whether something is fine or not. In this game general popularity only points out which ships have the lowest skill floor and nothing else.

Just because they're playable doesn't mean they are fine. Heck, the only reason why they're playable in the first place is because the majority of the playerbase is abysmal. What do high tier IJN torp DDs do better than other DDs? The answer is straight up nothing. Their torps are bad, their guns are bad, their speed is nothing to write home about and while their concealment is good, they have nothing to exploit it which makes it a moot point. If you want to play a torpboat, play Fletcher or Gearing. If you want to gunboat, literally every other line will serve you better. If you want to contest caps, German is the way to go. If you want team utility, well, these have none. No DFAA, no hydro and standard smoke. This line is completely obsolete and has been for a while. Why are they still popular then? Same reason why BBs are popular. They're easy to use and with all the potatoes running around they will reward you eventually no matter how often you have to fail beforehand. In all my DD games I have yet to meet a situation in which I can honestly say "oh yeah, being a Shima would be good now". Because such a situation does not exist period.

[KC] Apparently Nagato is getting a special attack mechanic. I guess I'll bookmark this month's blueprint for her then.

Been awhile since I stumbled around like an idiot in this game. Sub gameplay takes some getting used to, but it's fairly fun nonetheless. Thankfully still managed a 5* victory thanks to my team actually knowing what to do unlike me. I don't see how these can be implemented in PvP tho.