El2aZeR

I don't agree, but to each his own I suppose.

Who could've guessed this would happen? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Note to CVs: Your goals can also be achieved by nerfing the flooding prevention percentage of BB TDS and their fire resistance coefficient. Upping fire and flooding chances in general might affect cruisers and DDs much harder than you think. They simply don't have the HP pool (or repair in most cases) to endure long duration fires/flooding after even just a partially successful strike, despite their quicker DamCon cooldown, whereas a BB might survive and walk it off via repair if it's left alone for long enough. If the additional effect of BBs being weaker to HE spam and torps is undesirable then I'm sure it's possible to make this affect only air-dropped torps and bombs. And yeah, the font is a bit too small, but the comic is awesome. Keep it up!

Alabama gets pre-buff NC guns as far as I know, meaning that the sigma (vertical dispersion) is a lot worse. The NC/Alabama has 16"/45 Mark 6 guns. The initial AP shell velocity is 701 m/s. Dispersion is 293m at 23.3km (NC, not sure if Alabama is different). The Iowa/Missouri carries 16"/50 Mark 7 guns. The initial AP shell velocity is 762 m/s, which is a highly noticeable increase and gives them a bit more penetration power. Dispersion is 261m at 23.4km if you mount the accuracy module. Due to the longer barrel shell arcs are also a more flat. Overall gunnery is a lot more comfortable on Iowa/Mo, but don't let that influence your decision too much. Since you like brawling I'd recommend the Alabama. Iowa/Mo are vastly different in playstyle and must not brawl if they value their life. They're not maneuverable enough, too big in size and the citadel is far too high, extending about halfway up the belt armor above the waterline (although that is going to be addressed in the next patch). Alabama has essentially the same armor but a waterline citadel, making her far superior in that regard. Iowa and Mo are mid-range stealth snipers and perform marvelously at that role, but they're incredibly weak in close quarters. Alternatively if you can put off your purchase for a bit and have the spare time on your hands, go grind an Iowa and see if her playstyle suits you, then make your decision from there.

#justDamageSaturationthings

I'd rather sort it like this based on the average tier of the match as it makes a lot more sense imo: T4 - top tier T5 - mid tier T6 - low tier T7 - low tier (or "bottom tier" if you want to differentiate) Thus, if the average tier is T6, T5 ships do get up tiered more often than not.

No. Also in my experience auto drops on low tiers are still hilariously easy to dodge.

Shouldn't the average tier always be the tier you're playing in? Doesn't having the average match tier for a T5 ship be T6 exactly mean that T5 gets up-tiered a lot?

Nothing has changed for DBs in the last patch. In fact, nothing has changed for DBs in a long, long time.

That's a reason, tho.

Well, obviously you wouldn't use them if you don't enjoy them. And if you enjoy them surely there are reasons for it.

The RTS like gameplay is not for everyone and CVs currently require the most skill to play effectively, in addition to having by far the widest skill gap between poor and good players. CVs also got nerfed over and over in the history of development, at the beginning rightly so because they were overpowered as hell, then further and further so that a lot of people simply stopped playing them. Then there's that currently USN is vastly inferior to IJN at mid and high tiers, certain noobtraps being in the game (some captain skills and AS loadouts) and the high tier economy still being bad even after it was supposedly buffed in the last major patch. So even on the off chance that someone wants to learn how to play CVs, they're incredibly hard to get into without proper guidance, something WG is simply not giving. They were always supposed to be a niche class, I believe the goal number was having around 5% of the whole playerbase play CVs. Right now I don't think we're reaching even 1%.

Oh, I'm grasping it alright. However if this game was balanced correctly instead of catering to the lowest common denominator it would be a lot more popular and would have a far longer service life, increasing profit by huge margins. It's a win-win situation, really. WGs business model becomes incredibly flawed as soon as a serious competitor takes to the market. Fortunately for them, there isn't one for WoWs.

There are huge implications in removal of CVs which would warrant major game mechanics to be redesigned. Examples: - AA is no longer needed, thus all ships would have to be rebalanced since good AA is no longer an excuse for other stats to be shafted. AA cruisers especially would need complete overhaul - Spotting mechanics would require a complete overhaul since without CVs ships that rely more on "invisibility" will run far more rampant than we're already seeing. This was especially prevalent in the days when CVs were almost extinct, becoming such an issue that WG had to nerf "torpedo soup". This ties in with the recent removal of stealth fire, which was never a problem when CVs were around - Consumables would have to be redesigned along with spotting mechanics - Overhaul of spotting mechanics would entail another round of rebalance, possibly affecting literally every other major game mechanic such as damage, armor and so on - Some new incentive to force teamplay would have to be designed, tested and implemented - Camping would become even more prevalent, requiring addressing (it already does, but it would exacerbate the problem) Need I go on?

If it did seal clubbing wouldn't really be possible, no?

Official stance is that WG will not remove CVs. Which is very much reasonable considering removing CVs would require a complete redesign of the game.

I usually do the same in addition to trash talking the enemy from time to time, yet somehow I managed this: Maybe your name is not as charismatic or aesthetically pleasing as mine?

Right, because hugely popular MP games (f2p or not) have succeeded by always catering to the lowest common denominator. Oh wait. Or as cro_pwr has put it in the other thread: Honestly, I hope you're never in charge of balancing a game, because your mindset will eventually lead to it's death. Always catering to the lowest common denominator is about the worst thing you can do when it comes to both game balance and long term survivability, and therefore profit. You have just devalued your opinion completely.

Click on the minimap, then try again. If that fails change any minimap option and it should work again.

WoT is an e-sport with a not insubstantial following, professional teams and sponsors. It's bound to rake in cash. That's not the case with WoWs. I can guarantee that if there was a better alternative on the market people would've left WoWs in droves after the recent changes, but since it's the only game of it's type right now with no competitors in sight anywhere we're stuck with it no matter what WG does.

Honestly, if you want to play a high tier torp DD get a Fletcher instead. It offers utility, versatility and firepower an IJN DD can only dream of.

Still means it's bad gamedesign, no? Also f2p games thrive on a core playerbase that is not only willing to throw money at it, but is also willing to stay with it for a long time. That doesn't necessarily mean having to cater to the lowest denominator, as those are usually not part of it. Problem here is that not only aren't there any real competitors around, making WoWs a monopoly, but it is also developed by a company that has substantial financial backing from other sources. Thus WG can do whatever they want, really, no matter how bad it makes the game.

Time to play the consumable lottery! (She's gonna get Def AA, that's a no-brainer) I bet she'll receive the torp reload booster. Seems like an obvious choice with just a single torp launcher and it's the only consumable USN DDs have yet to get (if you count Lo Yang as a USN DD). Or, god forbid, Radar.

They lost 10 out of more than 300, with approx. half of them getting swatted out of the sky when Yama exploded. So in reality they lost ~5 to enemy AA. Tbh sounds like your case is a l2p issue, but without replays I can't say anything conclusive.

It used to be that the system would just tally up the tier numbers and attempt to make that as equal as possible, resulting in hilarious match ups such as this one: As you can see tier numbers are all over the place with the losing team never really having a chance of winning this game, but the tallies of both teams are 75/77, which in the eyes of MM was roughly "equal". Obviously that has changed with limits on tier difference, equal number of ships and some loose attempt to mirror nations and classes, but I do believe the basic system still remains the same.