entar128

"No because Greek Destroyers were realy unique ships. Dr Santorinis in 1937 to 1938 invanded RADAR and placed it in Valieus Georgios for testing. British bought the patern (Greece had not the fund for mass production ) and developefd teh radar we all know. Yes Greek Navy has a ling tradition of creating hybrid ships. The heavier German main and AA guns had one purpose to cause damages to Turkish Destroyers in traditional gun fightings! But the torpedos remained British." The only thing I can find about this is on some random blog named thegreatestgreeks that does some outlandish and easily disproven claims about the radar, mentioned as the "hellenic radar" in contrast to the "watts" radar. I can find no evidence on wikipedia or the greater internet, not even a mention about this doctor except a dentist and a team of scientists developing a weatherradar in modern times. The destroyer also have no mention at all about a radar. The type of radar mentioned has a grand total of 4 hits on google, where the aformentioned blog has all 4 hits. 2 from a forum referring to this blog, where they also discuss the claims about a modern radar to be mounted on jetaircraft. The radar was researched on before this dr Santorini was even born, and continued to be researched on up to and after 1937. It didnt suddenly appear 1940. (Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radar) So, do you have any sources backing up the claim of the radar and the claimed inventor? Edit: I cant quote correctly on mobile atm. :(

They couldnt even reverse the nerf they did in 0.5.2 where the hp was nerfed from 44900 to 40800. The reason given, if I remember correctly, was that the Zao could stealthfire(?). So.. the Zao will go to 42800hp... yay... a whole overpen of damage, that will fix the Zao. I think that WeGreedy is just trolling us, making this "buff" something they can point to and say "Look, we listened, we buffed the Zao". Sigh.

The first destroyer is the Fumitsuki, sunk by aerial bombs. The last picture is of the Akizuki, belived to be sunk by a torpedo. They are not the same ship, also not sunk by guns from aircraft. Dont make it sound like its the same ship, do some research that is more indepths than a simple google picture search. This took me less than 5mins to find out. I believe, after some looking around, that gunstrafing on ships by landbased aircraft were more common in the European theatre, less so in the Pacific theatre. However I havent gone that deep into it. Also, supressing AA with leading strafing with fighters was done what I can find, however its more supression than actual damage. I may be wrong about the efficacy of the AA supression strafing. Edit: found a rumour that a DD was sunk due to depthcharges exploded after a strafing from aircraft. Trying to find any sources. That DD, a minesweeper and a trooptransport is all that I can find. All unconfirmed, and without any sources, so very low confidence on the validity. Edit2: Suppressing AA with strafing is NOT a gamemechanic that should be introduced, and is absolutely not something I am proposing. I only brought it up to confirm that it actually happened. Sources: https://www.scubaboard.com/category-articles/professional-submissions/283-fumitsuki-destroyers-fight/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Akizuki_(1941)

I know I need to play it way back, slinging HE from afar. But I find that boring, unable to influence the battle in any real way, very hard to support the DDs and hard to contest caps. I think I am in the same corner as you regarding "fun"-ness of those ships/that playstyle. Perhaps the Hinden just isnt for me.

Maybe 34 battles are too few in this ship for you to get an accurate picture. For me its the Hindenburg which I am horrid in. I think I play it too much like a hybrid between Zao and Des Moines, and forgetting the worse concealment. Not that I am a stellar player overall, but this ship... I just cant get it to work for me, and I am 99% sure its my own fault.

I am sorry, and I stand corrected. That you indeed did. @OP The Massa is a good ship tho, and I think you will have more fun in it after you gain a bit more playerexperience before playing it. I would recommend not to "buy" winrate with OP ships, as I dont think that works that good. Play more ships(but not just BBs) start from lower tiers work yourself up. You will hopefully become a better player, and with more experience you will probably enjoy the Massa more.

Thats a playarea for children, not a product. Good attempt tho.

Alt-prntscr takes a screenshot of the active (window?)/screen. Hope that helps. :)

Before the CV-rework there was discussions (more akin to hope) that the new CVs would break up the campingmeta... I dont think it did. As with subs, I am almost confident to say that it will not decrease camping, or it will change camping for the worse (if it is possible). Instead of camping near (or in the same postcode atleast) the cap, players will "camp" even further out, near the borders (moreso than now that is). Imagine how players act now when there is an unspotted DD near a cap, now imagine what happens you have an unspottable submarine shooting homing torpedoes. Will there be more pushing into caps..? I am not so sure about that.

I have a theory, might be long, and based on my own experience of the game since launch: When the game was first released, there was more engaged and interested players playing, and the ratio "bad"* players vs "better" players was tipping more against the latter, and the latter carried the not so good players. The game matured a bit, and the GE BB line was released, and I think an influx of players started. The GE BBs was more forgiving compared to the IJN and US battleships, mechanically impossible to citadel, and taught bad behaviors such as showing broadside didnt instadelete you. This is the moment in the game when I think it started to get worse. The game matured a bit more and the "lemming"-train started to be a favoured tactic, "bad" players vs "better" player ratio started to shift toward the former, but the "better" players could carry the team atleast a bit. CVs were on the decline, it was a novelty if you actually got a CV in the game. Speccing AA was a joke, as perhaps 1 in 10 or even 1 in 30 games had a CV. BBs still ruled supreme with 4-5 BBs per side, DDs was also plentiful with sometimes 4-5 DDs per side occasionally causing mass fratricide among the DDs. CA/CL was endangered getting preyed on by the BBs and DDs, BBs had mostly themselves to worry about. The lemming-train got more and more frequent, so did the "BB riding the A-line/10-line away from every concievable objective", plus if the BB was slinging HE. The game matured more, UK BBs got released, causing a massive epidemic of BBs firing HE on everything... because... "hey, UK BBs did it, why shouldnt I do it in my Amagi..?". Lemming-training was present in almost every game leading to some comedic "one team chasing the other team counterclockwise around the map", think Two brothers and both teams going clockwise. Ratio "bad" players vs "better" players was shifting towards the former and now the "bad" player was getting to a majority, "better" players couldnt carry any longer, the games started to avalanche towards either side. More ships were released with... some times mixed results, and some times "WTF WG" results. CVs was almost extinct. The CV-rework got released. Lemming-train started to evolve, just as predicted by many on the forums, toward a blob. Every "whine" about CVs being to strong got knocked down with either "just dodge" or sail with a buddy/the team to augment your AA to survive. Players took the advice, and started to sail close together, forming the "blob". Flanking ships and ships relying on stealth got sniped by the CV or had their only strength stripped from them and stopping the enemy "blob" going on the other side with a couple of flanking ships was a suicidemission. Either the blob ate you, or the CV blapped you. "Bad" players was now in a large majority, and such the "blob" stopped when it met resistance because noone wanted to take a risk and get sunk. Thus the blob evolved to "blob-in-a-map-square"-tactic where the teams started to huddle up for security in a single map-square. Wander outside of this blob, and you got mercilessly gunned/bombed/torpedoed back to shipselection with a hefty amount of reports. Somewhere here even more ridiculous ships got released (read: RU BB-line). More of the dedicated/engaged and interested players lost interest and here we are, the poor team that flounders in its advance or get led by a timid BB player (led, like, the BB being infront dictates the pacing, not commanded by) gets trapped. Control has been stripped from players, you cant influence the game in the same way as before, but you rely on the other 11 players in the team, and you have to rely on the group psychology of the group. If the lead BB breaks away, the whole team will probably break and huddle together. CVs encourages this, especially with the "counter" to CV which is to huddle up. I think even more "better" players stopped playing, and the few left had less ways to influence the game in a meaningful way. It is possible, but with an effort that isnt warrented by a game I play as a hobby to wind down from my work. Sidenote: I see the CVs as an enviroment hazard, which if I am honest, is really degrading to the good CV-players, but... if there is a threat I cannot do anything meaningful about and if I try to do it I will be placed in an even worse position... what else to view it as? Now, add submarines to this. It will not enhance the game. The blob might evolve even further, and I predict the "blob-in-square" will probably evolve into "blob-by-border" or similar. The sense of control will evaporate when target-seeking torpedoes from invisible boats slam into the lead BB, stripping half of the HP of the ship. What will this do with an already fragile/volitile group of players in the team? I think it will break the group even harder, and the small amount of control left players are feeling after the CV-rework will disappear. Surfaceships will be targets for CVs and subs. Do I think the game is on its last gasps..? Before the CV-rework I would have said "no way, the game is going strong" Now? I honestly dont know. But, hey, I am just a player writing on the forum presenting his own theory of a game I have played for almost five years and which I enjoyed to play, and want to enjoy to play again... so what do I really know? Its a long post, ranty post, but I write it out of frustration of a game I enjoyed and in a niché I have dreamt of since I started playing games (yeah, I know, I am a sad dude...) is going the wrong way. Also, my english is probably not perfect... not my first language. * Note, bad players might also be players not playing the objective, badly educated players, players not so invested in the gameplay and so on, you get the jest.

What make me considering quitting, or more truthfully, what has made me take another break from the game: 1. The CV rework, how it completely missed like every goal WG set up for it. CVs play its own little game, and it feels like I am just target practice for the CV. Minimal interaction between surfaceships and planes, and now my friendly CV cant protect or counterplay the enemy CV. I have managed now by just ignoring the CV, I cant do anything about the planes, no reason to try to dodge as it mostly messes up my positioning/angling and I will get hit either way. I see the CV just as an enviroment hazard or funkiller, because if I am bowtanking and/or dodging enemy shells, the CV comes, and just... blows me up. AA doesnt matter, and if it does matter another wave of planes just comes 30s later and does the same thing over again. It robs me of control, and I feel just like a target for the CV. If the CV decides I need to be sunk, I will be sunk. I cant hide, I cant run, I cant influence the match, I am just waiting for the CV to strike me, again and again and again until I am sunk. I can run from a BB, I can hide behind cover if I get focused by surfaceships, I can go undetected from that HE-spammer hiding behind an island, I can chose if I want to engage or disengage to repair and reposition. The CV ignores all of that; concealment is just a facade, cover is contraproductive, and running makes no diffrence as the planes are much faster than my ship. That is utterly frustrating. I took a 3-4 month break because of the frustration I felt over CVs. I tried to get back into the game again now, and try to just endure the CV like in the good old days with the RTS CVs. However it feels like the MM really tries to shove in CVs in every match. So I played, and I really sucked at aiming. Thought it was just me being rusty, however my aim really really sucked. So I started to check the fall of shot, and my shells went through the ships a lot of times... so I am now again on a break from the game because of the following issue: 2. The desync issue. This really killed my enjoyment of the game. It really is frustrating to see shell after shell just... disappear. I like the game, and I have played for a while, but this issue... it totally sucks the fun out of the game together with issue #1. Other issues for me, gnawing in the background: 3. Ridiculus russian ships; The russian BB-line, the upcoming russian CA/CL-split. I am not complaining that the ships are OP (which many are tho), I am complaining of the amount of paper ships in the lines, getting pitted against historic ships. Why do I complain about this? The historic ships were designed for real world combat and with real world restrictions and limitations. The russian ships are designed for this game, and they are more optimized for this game than the other ships that has a better basis in reality. F.e; Armor is exploiting "autobounce" feature and more. 4. The upcoming submarines. With how the CV-reworked went, I have little confidence in how WG will balance the subs. Also, when I look how WG "handled" the CV-rework I believe the subs will come, and regardless how unbalanced or unfun the subs might be for either the submarineplayer or the rest of the players, WG will not back down from the amount of work they have put into the gameplay of subs and the subs will stay. Sorry for ranting, I really liked the game. I want to play the game with the enjoyment I felt before. Now it just makes me frustrated.

Yeah, but they are the closest to a "BC". Afaik Sweden didnt have any larger warships, so the closest to a BC-line for Pan-Europe(sweden in disguise) is those two ships, and it would be rather boring... unless they find some sekrit blueprints for a line of paperships. I think that the BC line for Pan-europe would come from any other country but Sweden. It was the definition for "BC" I used in that context, as the speed is too low to classify it as a BC and the guns are borderline. Technically I think anything above 8" isnt classified as a cruiser according to the treaty (dont remember which of them). I am probably wrong. :)

I think swedish BCs* would be rather boring and underpowered. The Sverige-class with 2x2 283mm guns doing a whopping 22-23,5knots or the predecessor Oscar II-class with 2 210mm guns steaming ahead at blistering 18knots. A ship from each of the class combined (7238 tons for the former and 4273 tons for the latter) is just over the treatylimit for a cruiser and far below that of even a Hipper-class cruiser. All of the ships combined in both classes would not even come close to a proper battleship or battlecruiser from any of the larger nations. And the speed is lacking, and they are classified as a coastal defense ship, so no Swedish BC line. As a premium cruiser... mayhaps. *definition of BC in this context = caliber over 8" (203mm) guns, but not classified as a BB Edit: dont write on a mobile at work... the result might not be quite what you actually wanted to say

I wasnt my intention to be vague. I am sorry for that. Problem I see: # Ships are getting good enough results for not playing the objective # BBs have all the tools to be able to get good enough, or even average gains from just shooting from max range, and the gains for actually pushing isnt outweighing the risk of getting sunk/getting lower rewards # The behaviour is "learned" from lower tiers, and now all the players that has "failed" themself up from lower tiers doing that behaviour, has ended up in higher tier games, which has upset the "trust" between players - making noone wanting to be the "first" to push, because you dont know if your fellow BB player on the flank is going to follow, or just nope-out and go another way # Too many BBs in the match are pushing cruisers out, and pushing cruisers to (what I think) a rather boring playstyle being behind islands, as you cant angle against 5 BBs being on diffrent flanks, and cruiser being something BBs love to shoot at # Too few cruiser->not enough "support" against DDs, making the balance shift even more to not pushing, and the slots taken before by cruisers, are now getting filled by DDs - creating the fun, and balanced "5 BBs, 2 cruiser and 5 DD" setup or even more fun "1 CV, 5 BBs, 1 cruiser and 5 DDs". Suggestions: * Only award full XP for actions taken while being near a contested cap, or threatened cap (enemy ships near that cap), and have it decrease outwards from the "hotspots" of action. Border giving like 50% and being close to the action gives like 100% (or even a bonus) - and, more importantly: provide clear information to the player why the XP/credits gains were not at 100%. This is not limited to just BBs, but all classes - this might be too punishing for ships that arent near caps, but are filling a vital tactical role, needs to be tweaked so it wont kill tactics like flanking and such * Have a more harsher dispersion/sigma curve for BBs, significantly reducing the accuracy for firing from 12+kms (tweakable) or something - if you are too far out, you wont be hitting anything - this might be too much with the first suggestion * Provide a short information panel when a new player obtains a new ship, especially if that ship has a new ability. "You have bought the xxx-ship. The characteristics of this ship is blablabla. Remember, in a BB try to use your damage control tactically. It is sometimes better to let one fire burn it self out, instead of using damagecontrol on that fire" or "If you feel you are taking too much damage from fires (when it detects you have gotten a lot of fire damage) you can specialize your captain for better fire protection, there are also modules to help with fire", and with a new ability - perhaps provide a short video "This is hydro, this is how it is used", and if it is a totally new ability for the player, perhaps force the player into a COOP match or two so they can use it (pershaps even force the player to use it before the player can continue) * Limit BBs to 3 or 4 - this might be a really bad idea, it might push the queues up, causing casual players to just quit out. * Increase battlesize and fill the slots with cruisers/DDs, and lower the percentage of BBs - might not be a good idea when I think of it * Provide, in the afteraction report, possibility to review the match on a minimap through a replaysystem. Highlight XP gained, and how the player moved on the field with running stats on damage taken, firedamage taken, and HP healed * Provide, in the afteraction report, something to highlight amount of XP/credits gained on a win, and XP/credits "lost" on a losing match I hope that is more clear.

Sorry, I wasnt clear. I am against buffing BBs, and that "throwaway" sentence is what I would want to happen if BBs would be buffed, with the consequences exactly as you predict. Ie: a really bad idea to buff BBs, and I dont want it to happen.

So, to boil it down; BBs arent pushing because there arent enough CAs or CAs are too weak, and BBs can do most of what CAs can do so the class kindof obseleted itself. I can buy into that. Below are my own observations, I dont actually have that much statistics to back it up with. Sorry if I just regurgitate something that has already been said. I like this game, I have played it since open beta. I would like to keep playing the game as it is rather unique in the gaming space, but it is getting rather frustrating. And it seems I am ranting as well. I distinctly remember that it was discussed on the forums that moving the tools cruisers had to BBs was going to remove the "role" the cruiser has, and make the class less popular. Now, radar is still a tool that is mostly limited to cruisers, however I have a hard time calling the "super"-cruisers cruisers. (By definition in the treaties of the time of the classifications the Alaska, the Stalingrad and Krohnstadt are battleships/battlecruisers, and not cruiser, but that is a rabbithole I dont want to explore). BBs became more popular, because; well its not fun to get devstruck as a noob in a cruiser by a BB shooting at you. Why, as a causal player, play a CA, when you can just play a better CA (ie: BB) and do better in it. And to top it off, you can just hang back outside range of most of the weapons and still devstrike cruiser trying to push a cap, or gang up on the poor enemy BB that pushes. If all fails, and the enemy team pushes up, you can just sail away and disengage. Now disengaging isnt an invalid tactic par se, but it causes the next BB besides this to also falter, and the "panic" goes through the line and it breaks. There is strength in numbers, when you just want to causally play the game and do average-good, hop in a BB, stick with the rest of the team (blobbing/lemmingtrain) and devstrike a cruiser or whack 50% of a DD with an AP-salvo, or just send volleys into a BB with HE and rack up huge amounts of damage. The player is rewarded with enough XP to keep them going without much effort put into the game by the player. More players have now "failed" themself up through the tiers, and are now perhaps outnumbering the players knowing how to play the class more to its fullest, and the delicate balance and "trust" between players: that if I push, I get my fellow player with me. As the trust is broken, I dont want to push up, because noone will follow me. Why would they, they have failed themself up all of the tiers, and it has worked, why change now? In the end, if you do push, the other 4 BBs are still going to volley at the backline, supporting the push by artillery but not by dividing damage taken between ships. You are then the first BB up, get focused down by the other sides BBs and if you get close enough you get set on fire by CAs/DDs, and this is probably the thing on your mind when your ship get sunk: last fires by the CAs/DDs. Not that your teammates are happily shelling from 10-12km behind you, most of the damage taken has been AP shellhits from the enemy BBs. So, the not so good player then concludes, after misuing repairparty (which may be non-premium) and mishandling damagecontrolparty: If I push, I get sunk. When I push I get hosed by HE from CAs/DDs and set on fires constantly. The fault must therefore lie in that BBs are too weak, or that the HE-spammers are too powerful. Then the demand starts: nerf fires, nerf torpedoes and so on, which is like taking more and more powerful pain medications to relieve a pain in the leg, instead of going to the ER to have the bonefracture corrected. I pose the question: how to make these not so good players better players, and make them want to push as a team? Please dont use the old "nerf HE/nerf fires/nerf torpedoes", because, if you are honest with yourself, do you think it will change the behavior? And if it does, what happens with every other class in the game if the BBs gets even stronger? * I write CAs, indicating only heavy cruisers, but I refer to light and heavy cruisers

Question to WG staff, or someone else that might have this information: Is it possible to access damage done by type to a class? Ie: AP-damage done to BBs and so on? Perhaps damage type broken down by class, or atleast total damage done broken down by class.

If dispersion is raised by 500-600% (depending on height of rangefinders) while the rainstorm is in effect, then maybe... Edit: Well... no. Its really a not good suggestion.

However I wholeheartedly disagree. BBs do not need a buff in survivability. They are already hard to kill as it is, attempting to nerf the damage done to BBs isnt the right way to go, it will not change anything except driving even more players to playing BBs. That is not the cause for BBs not pushing. I think the cause is that they can get away with standing at range and sniping, not doing much to influence the match but still racking up lots of XP/damage. Neither nerfing fire, HE damage, torpedoes or anything else like that will help, except shafting cruisers, destroyers and perhaps CVs. If you arent thinking of increasing the numbers above 100%, it is a rather not good idea and will so remain. IF a buff would happen, I think that BBs need to be restricted to max 1-2 BBs per side, and the repaircost should be prohibitive to encourage players to play something else than the clearly OP class BB. All in all, I firmly believe that BBs do not need any buffs, but rather, if anything, one or a couple of nerfs.

So in essence its a large nerf to all HE damage for every class except BBs and a (massive) nerf for firechance (and firedamage) on primarily BBs. HE shells never do the listed max damage unless its a citadelhit, like AP shell. The shells do 1/3 of the damage on a penetrating hit. The above suggestion would either; lower the damage to 1/6 for DDs firing on BBs, and reduce damage for cruisers to about 1/5 (1/3 * 1/6= ~1/5?) of the listed value, OR you are suggesting a buff for cruiser so they would do 2/3 of listed damage instead of normal 1/3 pen damage on BBs. Add to this the mechanics of saturation. With the above suggestion either a Des Moines shell will do about 616 damage on a pen, and a Fletcher will do about 200 on a pen with HE OR a DM will do about 1800 damage. I think this equates to a massive buff to BBs and an overall nerf to every other class. I dont think that is a very good suggestion. I might have misunderstood.

I might reiterate a lot that has already been written. Problem with that is that HE is subjected to saturation (which, I believe was introduced to lower damage taken by just HE). If you have a BB with saturated superstructure, how will you damage it with lower calibre HE without fires? With this proposal: Cant pen the bow, sides or the stern. Cant damage the saturated superstructure. Unless you torpedo it, you are rather in a bad situation. The lower damage is already "modelled" with the BB having a much larger HP-pool, better armor, (I think) better/more heal (T9+) or just having a heal (T3-T8). BBs do not lack survivability. Players who arent yet good BB captains lack tutorials, info or lessons on how to use the very powerful class. There are 4-5 BBs (33-41% of the match) per side (subject to my own confirmationbias tho), the other 3 classes taking up the other 7-8 slots. I believe now that the amount of BBs hinders not yet good BB players from pushing, but are afraid that if you propose something the very BB they themself plays might be nerfed. So proposals to buff BBs, or nerf other classes appear. Proposals like this (I am not trying to be antagonistic against you directly) make BBs seem to be meek, weak and helpless victims in a sea of dangerous overpowered opponents. BBs are the most powerful class of ships in the game, they are also among, if not, the most numeral of ships in matches. It has, from the start when you get one, the ability (universally availibe to all of its class from T3, which is unique in the game) to be able to heal damage taken. BBs do not need buffs to be encouraged to push or let go of the mapborder and join the other kids in the ring. BBs do not need a buff at all. The mindset and rewards needs to be changed. As I wrote before; In the past repaircost was calculated depending on HP lost in the match. The theory then was that this prevented many players from pushing in fear of higher repaircost. A logical theory. WG wisely removed the scaling repaircost so that it was constant. Did BBs push more? According to my (might be biased, as I stated earlier) observations: no. Still a good change overall, but it didnt change the mindset or the behavior. My thoughts/proposals: * limit the amount of BBs per match to perhaps 2-3 * better tutorials/guides overall * at end of match scorescreen: highligh the extra amount of XP/money gained on a victory * at end of match scorescreen: enable a topdown simplified replay over the match * on screen reminder if a ship has been outside battleareas (at or near borders, uncontested friendly cap etc) -> might be a bad proposal Another consideration is that if WG does anything drastic to BBs it might have an economic impact as the less skilled players that just want blow ships up in a powerful battleship just quit for another game. That would be rather bad for all parties involved. The problem might also stem from an aging playerbase. Less good players are advancing/failing up the tiers, bringing with them bad habits that has "worked", or atleast not punished them, up into higher tier, upsetting the (little) "trust" between players/classes and creating many of the problems. Sorry for typos/spellingerrors; on a phone

This, about, tutorials: yes. Especially the part of advanced for each shipclass.

Of course you should have an "out plan" and not charge in and suicide. However I think that BBs should take damage, and thus spare your other teammates, especially DDs, damage taken. If the BB plays too safe and not get shot at all, the BB will probably survive while the supporting DD(s)/cruiser(s) will have too low (or no) HP to make any impact when at last the BB pushes, and the age long rant in chat "I pushed now, but got no support! Bad team/BG". Gamesense (mentioned before) is when and how to push with a BB too both save (if possible) your teammates while still preserving your own ship. I agree that this cant be taught in tutorials, and those which are in need of tutorials will probably not watch/do the tutorials. However if you are getting consistantly average-good results from sitting back and sniping, why change? You arent really pushed to make a change if you end up top 3 in the team almost regardless if its a win/loss. The game is telling you that you are doing the right thing by awarding this kindof play, so why change? Proposal: * XP "penalty" applied on distance from uncapped/contested cap-points. Ie if you are at the border you get 30% XP, and if you are close (<12-15km tweakable) to a contested/uncapped point you get 100% XP. Perhaps a bit heavy handed, and might cause frustration if not explained in a clear manner for players. Perhaps show on a overview replay (map replay) showing where you got 100% XP or something. Edit: sorry if I come off as condecending, not my intention. I am writing on a phone and I am rather nausious.

Skill does matter, if not noones skill matter. If your skill in a battle doesnt matter, then mine doesnt, or the three DDs skill, or the 4 BBs and so on does in the same match. If that would be true everyone would gravitate towards 50% winrate after a significant amount of matches. The more matches you do, the closer to 50% you would be. Does that happen?

I believe its more a balance issue than rooted in reality. But how else would cruisers (especially those without torpedoes) be able to kill a BB that angles? Higher HE damage? Better pen on AP or HE? And, if they do nerf fires (see BB bingocard, its been mentioned so many times), will it change anything, except shafting everything but BBs? I dont think so. It will be something else; DDs are too invisible - nerf concealment, cruisers can hit me -nerf range... and so on. There was a proposal to equip a brawling battleship-line with hydro... they are still found in the backline, and for that delicious cherry on top, they "spam" HE showing full broadside. Nothing changed that much. BBs comprise of the majority of matches, atleast 8-10 BBs every match. However I dont have any stats, so its probably confirmationbias. BBs do not need a buff. What gives me the incentive to play anything else but a BB if they can do everything? Why play cruiser that can get penned from every angle, when I can play a BB that is more protected? To the ones complaining about hitting a DD with BB shell and doing piddling damage. If a BB hits a DD with 12000 hp, scores 1-2 overpens, that equals to 1800-3000 damage. Damage that (usually) cant be repaired. Thats 15%-25% of the DDs HP. Thats like hitting an Iowa for 10215-17025 unrepairable damage... on two hits to anywhere on the ship, you only have to hit it. DDs, the counterclass to BBs needs to land torpedoes, slow, rather easy to avoid, and usually short range, or try to gun the BB down with either HE (subject to saturation) or try AP and hope the BB doesnt angle or just sail away. Thats the counterclass to BBs. Cruiser are in an even worse place, I think. Open gunboating is rather stressinducing - will I get deleted by that concealed BB firing from 15+km, or that flanking BB on thr other flank 20+km from me, or will I just get lolcitadelled from the one I am engaging. So, either you get some sort of corenary disease from stress, or you try to place something between you and the majority of BBs, ie an island. So you camp behind an island. BBs have the best survivability, best range and best alphadamage in the game... and they are the ones most often being complained on for staying back, and the ones complaining that they die too easily. Its been this way since I started playing. BBs does not need a buff, it will not change anything for the better, rather the opposite - it will steer players more to BBs, and increase the BB population (which I believe is already too high). Something else needs to happen. Change rewards, promote teamplay (I have no idea how at this point, cant _force_ anyone to do it)... or something, anything else than buffing BBs. Sorry for typos, writing on a phone.