Syrchalis

Such tasty food for my Hakuryu. Thanks to the Tirpitz sale I managed to get 375k damage in a single game.

I was focusing on IJN DDs, as I cannot talk about USN DDs. While I know how they work, what ranges they have etc. I didn't drive them, so I simply won't judge them. I only know that from T6 onward you basically shoot torps every 2 minutes as IJN DD and thats all there is. If you're unlucky you meet another DD or planes, but aside from that it's a big load of waiting, big load of hoping and very little skill or actual action involved. I didn't specify, because I saw how USN DDs are not very good either, so they might benefit as well.

Natürlich, das ist der Konter dagegen. Aber solange die Torpedos nicht an ihm vorbei sind, kann er nicht drehen und solange er keine Geschwindigkeit hat kann er auch nicht ausweichen. Man muss da sehr genau drauf achten was der Zerstörer tut und entsprechend den 2. Abwurf anpassen. Komplett ausweichen ist trotz allem relativ schwer. Mit einer 3. Staffel kann man dann schon fast sicher sein, dass irgendwas trifft.

Deshalb ist ja ein Bild mit dabei.

Mit dem Anflug bekommt man bei IJN TB 3 von 4 Torpedos ins Ziel, was schon über Durchschnitt ist. Manchmal sogar alle 4. Bei USN TB wären das alle 6. Senkrecht = Rechtwinklig = Orthogonal = 90°, ist alles das selbe. Verwechsel Senkrecht bitte nicht mit Vertikal, das ganze hier ist im geometrischen Sinne gemeint.

Then maybe you're doing something wrong, because the Hiryu is strictly better than the Ranger at the moment. Sadly the patch won't change it, but at least force you to face a CV, so you don't end up in a no-enemy-cv game with fighter setup (which is really frustrating). With hull upgrade the Ranger does have two VERY crucial advantages though. You have A LOT more reserve planes and your AA is the best by far on this level. This doesn't change with higher tiers too. You will never run out of planes, not if you don't waste them and the enemy is an IJN CV. The best you can do however is run 2/0/2 and try to do the "divebomb a BB, wait for repair, divebomb again" trick. If lucky your second DB does 3+ fires. The strike setup is TBH not worth it at all. Then better play standard layout. You will suffer immensely under the lack of squads (3 vs 6 of the Hiryu), but at least you are versatile.

Ich muss sagen, das Standard Layout (2/3/2) ist das flexibelste. 4/2/2 ist aber viel sicherer, gerade weil so viele 1/2/2 Midways und Essex rumfahren und deren TB einen extrem auseinander nehmen können - gerade weil man selber eher schlecht das gleiche mit denen machen kann, weil 90+ AA Rating >_<. Mit dem Patch ändern die zum Glück ja das 1/3/4 Setup auf 2/3/3 - also ein besseres Standard Setup. Würd ich direkt als Buff deklarieren.

You got it all wrong, what you're writing is theoretical blabber about "zoning" and "circles". What it really looks like is that teams ALWAYS split up eventually and even lemming trains have two ends that are vulnerable. The Ranger is hopelessly outmatched against a Hiyru, no matter if 2/2/2 or 0/3/3. Fighter Setup fares best, but you're still half the impact the Hiryu is. The two fighter squads of the Hiryu can pin your fighters long enough to allow the bombers to destroy something. Meanwhile you merely have two divebombers who can barely scratch a BB and much less hit something smaller reliably. So maybe you played against very bad Hiryu players or haven't played CV at all, but I own the Ranger and also a Hakuryu and I can promise you - Hiryu > Ranger anyday everyday.

I think the reason is because of how it is treated. A T3 and a T6 go into a match together. It is treated like a T6 ship. So it might end up in a T9 battle - with a T3. Worst case scenario, basically doesn't happen, but that's kind of whats behind it.

+-0 would bring the most fun for everyone involved, but people aren't playing for that. 75% of all players are playing for social aspects (this does not have to be playing in a group). Limiting them so harshly would hurt the game a lot, despite it benefitting the fun. The extreme cases are the biggest and most impactful problem, so they should be targeted. If the group has no bad intentions they will not deliberately make platoons with large tier differences, simply because of the fact that the low tier ships will have no fun at all in those games.

I agree with 3. Just because 3 is possible doesn't mean people will ALWAYS make divisions with 3 tiers difference. I for one don't usually group with my clan if they don't have a ship that is +-1 tier than what I want to play (or I have a ship close to what they want to play). On the other hand, with my T10 CV I often do bring T8 players, since there is nearly always T8 and T7 in a T10 match anyway.

Well ttchip, you know me and since you do - I have both ships and I can tell you: Hiryu is simply plain better. Wether it plays strike or balanced, the Hiryu just has too many squads for T7. The Shokaku (T8) has the same layouts. The Hiryu should have 5 squads like the Ryujo, but it has 6. Add to that the Ranger has only crappy layouts and you're left in a very bad situation. 1/1/1 gets eaten by 2/2/2 Hiryu, plus the bombers of the Hiryu if they are good can cause MASSIVE burn/flooding damage on two seperate targets (that's how I got that ridic score you see in my signature, note the Witherer Achievement). 2/0/2 is truly the best layout to face a Hiryu, as you WILL have air superiority. US CVs from the Ranger onward have giant amounts of reserve planesm unlike IJN CVs. However your impact on the battlefield will be small. Your best bet is to find lonely BBs, bomb them with one squad, let them repair, wait 10 sec (IJN BB) or 20 sec (US BB) and them bomb them again. If you're lucky you get 3 fires on the second run, which do A LOT of damage. Strike layout is good to grind XP to get past the Ranger, but overall it probably won't do any good. You could rely on your great AA after Hull B and CA support to fend off bombers and destroy the Hiryu, but if it's 2/2/2 you have little chance.

What a stupid and weak argument really. If you actually use your brain when looking at statistics, you see that most of my games are CV games, so OBVIOUSLY I don't get magazine detonation like others. I never had one in a CV. So we are at about a 1-2% chance, not 0,x%. Reading statistics like you want them to be is easy. And the chance was never the point. Read my last sentence again maybe. HOWEVER and this is something you don't see. I have oneshot several BBs with a single torpedo-bomber because of detonation. And believe me, while I was "a bit pleasantly surprised" the BB player was not. THOSE are the true moments when I hate the mechanic. I have a tiny smile on my face, and the other player is mad with rage. One small winner, one big loser. Bad mechanic. Real-life arguments are 100% and utterly irrelevant. This is a game. A game has one purpose - to be fun. If a game designer ever forgets that when designing a mechanic, he is bad at his job. WG takes the realism too seriously in many aspects and this is one of them. So having an explosive filled area and have it explode when hit - okay, that's not a problem. But what it does is the problem. It's an instant kill by pure luck that makes you unable to play this ship again for up to 20 minutes. Instead it could act like an enhanced citadel hit. It could instantly destroy the turret. All of these would be devestating, but not flat out "instant loss by luck". It doesn't matter if it's a 1% chance. It means of 20.000 players online, it is happening to 200 of them in their current game and ruining it. Tell me one popular game where you can INSTANTLY RANDOMLY lose because of pure bad luck and then have to wait 20 minutes to play again.

I think giving defensive AA to DDs is a HUGE mistake. The weak AA of DDs will not actually shoot down planes fast enough. In the time it takes the squad to die the DD will take 5-10 cruiser salvos at the very minimum. But what it also does - it makes DDs nearly unbeatable for CVs. They still get spotted and have a bad game because of the CV, but the CV now also suffers severe aim penality on their bombers and cant defend themselves against sneaky DDs at all. DDs are already the hardest to hit enemies. While this in itself isn't something I would call "unbalanced" (a lone CV shouldn't have the best shot against a DD) it doesn't really help make the game more fun for anyone. It just makes DDs suffer from CVs and CVs suffer from DDs. Noone wins, everybody loses. What really needs to happen is: 1. The CV matchmaking fix that is already GOING to happen 2. Reduce DD air detectability to something REALLY tiny like 1-2km at the very most for the biggest DDs (T10 or so) => What follows is that CVs fight their own war, have much less time to bomb non-CV ships and also no time to search for DDs with such a tiny detectability radius. This way you don't just spot DDs without even trying, you can only find them if looking for them and even then you need lots of time to find them. Keeping them spotted would then also require massive micromanagement of planes, which is fair. There is too much defensive AA fire in the game already anyway. It's a horribly designed ability. WG needs to either make all abilities that powerful (e.g. give BBs a consumable that prevents fires and citadel hits for 40sec, DDs 40sec smokescreen back and CVs something like AA or shell immunity) or rework this one. (You might see how ridiculous the proposed abilities sound, but that's how ridic defensive AA fire is, so it's clearly better to rework defensive AA fire - and not give that cancerous ability to even more ships). I think this patch will actually KILL DDs off. The rudder shift time change means you get surely 1-3 seconds more time to dodge torpedos. And we all know the difference between Minekaze (9sec reaction time) and Mutsuki (12 sec). It's the difference between "the most OP DD" and "the worst possible piece of crap DD". BUT if people actually stop playing DD then, WG might realize how big of a problem their overall design is and might actually do something.

When you go up a tier you expect an improvement. One of the things in WoWs that REALLY bugs me is how whenever you upgrade to the next ship you actually downgrade until you bought at least like two thirds of the upgrades. But since you are a tier higher now your enemies will generally be a lot higher too, putting you at an extreme disadvantage. Now generally this was bearable, but the Mutsuki - no. Going from 10km torpedo range to 6km is absolutely unbearable. If I want shitty short range torps I play US DDs and use their superior guns. The Minekaze starts with 7km, which gives you 1km range of not being detected while being in torpedo range. This is hard, but doable and totally in the IJN DD style. However 6km on the "better" ship is basically a US DD with shitty guns and forced to play against all the premium stuff that swirls around (Atlanta/Atago). Make it at the VERY least 7km. Or make the torpedo upgrade available without buying the hull B and reduce the price by at least 66%. 15.000 XP just so you can actually use the ship? Ridiculous.

It's always a bad thing, because it's a shitty game mechanic. Look at any fun, big, competetive game. Is there a random 1% chance a hero will just drop dead in any MOBA? Is there a 1% random chance that bosses in WoW will randomly die of a heart attack during the fight? Is there a random 1% chance your car breaks down in Need for Speed and you instantly lose? No. And there is a reason this crap is ONLY in WoWs. You dont respawn, you have to wait up to 20min for a battle to end and just randomly you die because of bad luck. That's the purest essence of a FRUSTRATING mechanic. The reward someone who CAUSED a detonation feels is small compared to the frustration the affected player feels and maybe even their team. It's bad and WGs designers should feel bad for it. Realism here or there, you don't ruin a game by a mechanic like this. Good that it's so rare.

Well, guess I will stick to my IJN Cruiser and my Carrier, albeit that is not a long-term thing, since I'm already at T10 with the CV. I was really looking forward to some fun gameplay with high tier DDs, but as far as it presents itself to me you need to wait 2 minutes between salvos and then just watch. I'm not sure how someone can even stand playing DDs past T6. For a month or so I'm stuck with the Mutsuki because I just can't be bothered to deliberately waste my time by choosing that boat.

Add to that that Minekaze torps have around 9sec response time for the enemy to dodge after he sees them (thats pretty short) and Mutsuki has 12 sec, which is longest of all torps - and thats on it's horrible 6km torps. It's a tiny bit better on the 10km ones, but still - you go from "barely enough time to even react" to "oh, torps, maybe lets at some point in the future try to avoid them... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand dodged."

Dude, I have a T10 CV, stop giving me noob advice. If there were stragglers I would get them. Guess you get matched against bad players, but I don't. They stick together and there is no ship that isn't surrounded by at least 2 cruisers. Even the cruisers themselves. So maybe play a T10 CV yourself first before you try to give advice. And swarming is worthless if cruisers force your accuracy to be crap. While you retreat immediately you still lose half your planes. The other half dies trying to attack. Then until you have your next wave up their 120sec CD is over already.

So CV players should have to face 40sec of absolute cockblock from cruisers, multiplied by the number of cruisers, 100 AA rating on high tier BBs (without the added AA of cruisers) and THEN WHEN THEY MANAGE TO GET A SINGLE PLANE THROUGH then you should be able to dodge that? Pls. How about we add imaginary anti-shell planes that make your dispersion 5 times bigger for 40 seconds and also reduce your damage permanently by 5% for every salvo you fire while they are active? Sounds ridiculous? That's what cruiser defensive AA fire is. Though, there are still only max 2 CVs in the enemy team, but T7+ you will face easily 8 cruisers, because noone wants to play DD (overnerfed) and only a few actually get past the whining stage in BBs. CVs are limited. So cruisers everywhere. Love how people don't even try to reflect on their opinion. See it from your enemies perspective as well. Yes in low tier CVs have little counterplay and that's really bad on WGs part, but in hightier there is so much counterplay that it's not even enjoyable anymore.

They should just make DD torps travel twice as fast. No change to detection range.

I would rather have it give you a bonus that depends on the tier of the ship - a flat bonus. This way your performance doesnt matter for the bonus. E.g. +1000 XP for the first victory per day (T4). I dont get why Wargaming insists so much on their dumb multipliers. Same for winning or losing a match. Winning should give a flat bonus, not double your performance XP. The reason is that if you play REALLY well and then lose because of a dumb team, you get nearly nothing compared to a win.

They should map it to something other than shift or give the option to remap it. Because going into retarded cinematic view when you want to select a group of planes is really annoying. I dont want it removed, I only want the modality gone. Every interface designer knows how modalities can infuriate people to all hell.

1. Chat isn't click through and it can't be altered, disabled, moved or deleted The amount of time my planes failed horribly because of this dumb invisible square that makes you unable to do anything is RIDICULOUS. If I could, I would disable the chat just so this freaking window would be gone. 2. Shift should really really not make you go into cinematic mode on carriers/planes AND ALSO be used for queueing commands/add removing Squads from the selection. And yes I am really damn angry. These two things infuriate me every day.

... if BB guns were a lot more accurate but also dealt less damage, to compensate for the increased accuracy? The average damage would stay the same, it simply meant more hits that deal less damage. Or do you like hitting inconsistently but if you manage to do a few citadel hits oneshot the one or other cruiser? I'm myself not sure what I would prefer.