Syrchalis

Challenging and powerful. The average potato can't do anything with them. You need to have very good aim, because you need to hit specific parts of the ships. If you manage, you can deal 5k a salvo. I think I died more to Bismarck Hydro than to random citadels. Also you just cannot ever hit a KM BB with torps - impossible if they aren't a complete idiot. Just disgusting these ships.

Yes you're right, I forgot about that, name removed.

Easy flags! First Kraken with Neptune today: Second Kraken: And to top it off - Solo Warrior:

While I agree the secondaries are horrendously strong - they are the trademark of this ship and if we remove them, then I feel like the game loses value because diversity goes down. Instead they should just leave the real STRENGTH of this ship intact and just pronounce the weaknesses correctly - and not equip it with consumables that are meant for CRUISERS primarily and DDs secondarily so they are immune to their counter.

Hydro gives far too much defense against DDs. Don't try to argue with such ... oh wait, you didn't have any arguments. Point is - Bismarck is clearly OP because it has no counter. Imagine Zao without a citadel - that's the Bismarck.

Because Hipper is a cruiser and they are SUPPOSED to counter DDs. BBs have stupid torpedo protection (they should take BONUS damage from torpedoes, not less) - so cruisers get fucked twice as hard by torps. Hydro helps them deal with that and counter what they are supposed to counter. You already see why Hydro does NOT BELONG ON FREAKING BBs - because it counters DD's defense AND offense HARD. But DDs should counter a BB. The other option would be to make Bismarcks so bad at dealing with cruisers that cruisers counter them. The ship is brokenly OP and anyone who claims otherwise has not ever faced a Bismarck himself with a DD or Cruiser with torpedoes.

All I read from you is "wah wah don't take away my hydro, or I have to actually RESPECT DDs (my counter) and cruisers with torpedoes". Bismarck has NO weakness that is relevant. Bad dispersion my [edited], that is not BAD dispersion. T3 BBs have bad dispersion. It has marginally worse dispersion than Amagi/NC if at all. AA? It's AA is insane with manual AA. And even if not, without CVs, this "weakness" doesn't matter. By far most OP secondaries in the game, fast, turns well, guns turn fast, reload fast, immune to citadels (99%) and is not countered by DDs like every BB actually should. >>> BBs survive for too long - WG 2016 Hey let's make them immune to citadels and give them hydro so they don't survive for that long - ??? - WG Logic.

Emden twice (I [edited]sold this crapa few months back already...), just camos and flags - >100€ spent. Essentially I got maybe 40€ worth of stuff in WGs ridic pricing and realistically 20€ in consumables. Yeah, amazing as always. I hate lotteries. WG give me Nikolai, I pay you 100€, but no more of this lottery BS. By far the best were the 1€ ones, there I got doubloons, 100 flag boxes and the 100 camo boxes. Especially the 3€ ones everyone is praising failed me hard. Well, 5€ containers were really bad too tho, never anything but camo.

So you guys want to punish players that play for fun? Simply because they are bad at the game? Blame the lack of matchmaking. I mean, in most games I play I carry, in some hard in others not so much, but that doesn't mean that all the other guys should be punished for it. Sure, carrying could give some better rewards, but first they should fix that for CVs - because as CV you can perform total horseshit and you get basically the same rewards as 300k dmg 7 kills super-force-hardcarry.

Not a good idea to punish casual players for being casual players in a casual game.

Ghostcrawler is a lead game designer of League Of Legends and talks about "randomness" in this video. It's interesting and probably very relate-able even for someone who isn't a designer. Plus it's just 5 minutes long, so it's a concise summary more than a long lesson. Applying some of his points to WoWs, you can see why some parts of the game are so frustrating as a player. Example: Shell dispersion, necessary, but frustrating. You are aiming well, you are shooting at the right moment, but the outcome is determined by randomness. The saving grace here is that salvos consist of a lot of shells and you fire a lot of them in a game, so if you consistently aim well, you will consistently hit well. This does not help you when you get one shot to live or die and randomness decides you die. Which brings me to my next point "things that make a less skilled player beat a more skilled player". Tons of that in WoWs - again, necessary, because unlike LoL WoWs is a casual game without skill-based matchmaking. If skill was the only factor (and maybe ship matchup) then less-skilled players would barely ever get a chance to shine, so their fun would be very limited and the game would die out as only the best die-hard veterans would fight for dominance. Feel free to add more points. I deliberately didn't judge WoWs here for being good or bad, but I just wanted to apply the video to this game, because I think it's interesting information.

Of course does WoWs do that. In an optimal world everyone would have a 50% win rate. If it was actually skill-based as much as something like Starcraft or LoL then people would run around with 95% winrates. The reason LoL has much better winrates overall is because of skill-based matchmaking, so people end up at 50% sooner or later. If you give a pro player an account in bronze, so he gets matched against really bad players, he will keep a 90%+ winrate until he gets somewhere close to his skill level. And this is despite LoL being a team game. If he then plays 1000 games at his skill level his winrate will come very close to 50% again - pretty obvious, right? So yes, WoWs is far less skill-based than other ACTUALLY competitive games. I'm not saying it's "not skill based enough" as you think I do - read again - I say the way it is, is necessary, because casual players would only suffer if it wasn't the case.

So deliberately false information? How about no? Arguing on matters like this here is so useless. WG only cares about social media, not forums. And most players here have zero idea when it comes to game design, worse yet, they think they know what's good but it's actually the opposite. Many things in game design can only be learned by trying them out and learning the results, and I doubt any of them ever developed a game before. Plus there is of course the always-flaming personally insulting BB-potatoes, who still think CVs are OP, while they drive around in the most broken class since months and will never learn to do anything but demand nerfs, because this inability to learn is why they still get clapped by underpowered classes.

Maybe think about it again. If you have a player A who is better than player B, then player A will win against B say 55% of the time. So Player B, the less skilled one will win 45% of the time. Take two players with the same skill difference in a game that is more skill-based and player B will have a 30% winrate. So the former game favors the less skilled side more than the latter - but neither game favors the less-skilled player over the skilled one. It's the same thing I wrote up there, just different words.

You probably misunderstood. The lesser skilled player has a much bigger chance of winning in WoWs than in a purely skill-based game. It doesn't "favor" the less skilled player over the skilled one, it just favors the less skilled player over the less skilled player in a more skill-based game, which is kind of obvious when you say it like that. Example 1: If two players in WoWs fight - or if you want to be super accurate two teams - then one side will have a certain winrate, say 55% to 45%. If you put the same players on either side with the same skill difference in a game like LoL, then the winates will be further apart, because the skill difference plays a much bigger role. So for this example it might be 70% to 30% or even more extreme. Look at CVs - they fight 1vs1 and skill is the only factor really. And guess what? This is a problem in WoWs, because it's not really a competitive game, but a casual one. I don't judge here, just pointing things out. For a competitive player this is frustrating, but great for the casual one. (Vice versa in case of CVs, since it doesn't apply there). Example 2: A CA versus BB is favored to the BB. Same as some champion matchups are favored to one side in LoL. With the same skill on both sides, the favored side will win more. However, with increasing skill difference the unfavored side can win and eventually even will win. In LoL the skill difference required to turn an unfavorable matchup into a favorable one is generally not that great. If you're better, you will win. In WoWs however, this isn't the case. If you're in an unfavorable matchup (CA versus BB or DD versus CA etc.) the amount of skill difference required is massive. Think of something like Pensacola against Gneisenau.

There is a difference between removing the skill from a game and closing an enormous gigantic unbelievable ridiculous unbalance-able gap between experienced and not so experienced players. Even if you remove HALF of the difficulty from CV, skill would still matter more than in other classes.

This would be too good and practical, same as an indicator for when defensive fire is active - just like DDs dont get a notification about radar/hydro or ANY ship a notification about being spotted.

FTFY - just pointing out how ridiculous the planes on Hiryu are. The reason Hiryu has such shitty torpedo bombers is because Ranger is so insanely underpowered. Instead of just buffing the Ranger and blessing it with a 1/1/2 setup they prefer to nerf Hiryu with planes under it's tier, while facing the least balanced AA in the game. T6-9 AA is considerably too strong for the damage planes can take. Nearly all AA skills and modules are available on these tiers, but the only relevant counter (+15% bomber HP) module is T9+ only. The +5% hp captain skill is a pathetic 8TH(!) of the +20% range AFT gives (20% more range on planes coming in and 20% when flying out... it's ridiculous) - no but also 20% AA range module, 100% high caliber AA damage and 10% overall damage from BFT. There is no wonder people generally only take AFT or manual AA and nothing else - because you're already bleeding the CV dry with base AA, even more with 1 of these things, but with 2+ of them? Overkill. Against a Hiryu with PoS T6 planes? Double overkill.

Hiryu with PoS T6 planes while it should have T8 (when upgraded). A T7 ship - facing the most overpowered AA (T7-T9). Of course you will suffer. T7-9 ships have all without exception (yes even Nagato) way too powerful AA. Hiryu has the worst planes of all CVs compared to ship tier. WG will not balance anything CV related until they rework them in 2019. So, if you want to suffer, continue playing a broken, underdeveloped class that even the best players abandoned months ago, because it's stale, boring and has to deal with unfun game mechanics 24/7 while engaging in fun for 5 seconds every 3 minutes. My suggestion: Play BBs. You get powerful ships that can deal with any situation alone. If you're good you're basically unkillable. Especially KM BBs have literally no weakness at all (OP long range AA and freaking hydro so DDs will NEVER hit a single torpedo on you). If you screw up you just repair and carry on. Without DD threat or citadels there is no damage that can stick, you can repair everything. If you want to play lottery go with DDs and hope the enemy BBs are tabbed out so sometimes you hit 2-3 torps - but well, you can cap and win game because sniping BBs won't bother winning. Or if you want a fun but weak class, go cruisers. Especially IJN. Once you get to the Zao, have 15 point captain and mount 8 signals you get a stealth-firing menace that is actually balanced versus BBs. But please don't ruin your fun by playing CVs in this pathetic state. You will just remember them being unfun and crappy once they get reworked into something that could possibly be ok.

They said CV rework is coming. But WG also said 2016 is going to be a great year for CVs, and they fucked up the class to new levels of unfun in this year, so I don't trust in WG at all.

That's what they did with CVs. But yeah, I dont disagree. You just have to understand that nerfing a overpowered class always makes it less fun, because stomping everyone is fun. And BBs clearly need some glaring weaknesses added and some versatility removed. They can't be jack of all trades and at the same time be the best at pretty much everything too. (Highest damage, survivability etc.) One should just not deliberately remove the fun out of BBs like a huge dispersion nerf - that would work, but it would be a bad solution. The things I suggested are much better, because they take away things BBs don't need to be effective or fun, they just take away unnecessary and unfun power. It's like auras in LoL. Incredibly powerful, but you don't feel the strength of them.

And how do you propose to reduce BB population? Cap and make them wait like CV players? The outrage will detonate the forum. Introduce "BB only battles" to siphon BBs from the pool? I think making them less noob-friendly and less versatile, so that you can properly abuse their weaknesses is the best choice. Simply because I think it's not fair that BBs don't have a strong weakness, like other classes. DDs are super prone to detonate or pseudo-detonate (getting twoshot by cruiser salvos or BB penetrations) - cruisers are super squishy and visible too. BBs are what? Slow? Nope. Weak to torpedoes or CV attacks? Nope. Sure they have tiny weaknesses, but they can't be properly exploited, while the weaknesses of other classes are incredibly easy to exploit. Radar or CV attacks absolutely ruin DDs. BB AP absolutely destroys CAs, but what wrecks BBs equally hard? Nothing. The one thing that did punish BBs like others classes was old Essex/Midway, but no that was too much for the BBabies.

@Kaseko Kutuzov has 19km range - it was a T6-8 battle, you want a cookie? Now try doing the same in a T8-10 battle with Mogami or New Orleans. And not just one lucky game, play 50 and post your average results. So, even you admit that playing cruiser is annoying because every idiot can shoot in your general direction and even if you do everything right you sometimes just randomly lose 50% of your health, just like that. There is something called "power to skill ratio" - and BB gives too much power, regardless of skill. Bad players perform too well in BBs, mediocre players perform too well in BBs and good players perform too well too. Compare that to CV, where bad players perform too bad, mediocre players perform too bad and the top players perform too well. That's why CV balance is so difficult, but for BB it's pretty easy - straight up nerfs. The points where they could take a beating are clear. Versatility - cruisers should be the super versatile allrounders, but right now BBs are far superior in that regard. AA - again, something cruisers should excel at, not BBs. Rudder shift, turning cirlce and gun traverse - power creep is strong in these, every new BB added had those values increased. What happened to ships like Warspite? Bad rudder shift, very good turning circle, very bad gun traverse - unplayable? Nah, I would say it's probably one of the best T6 ships in the game. Range - why do BBs need 5-10km more range than cruisers? No really, why this much? Only makes camping possible. BBs don't need to have shitty range, they can outrange cruisers by a few km, but why this much?

BBs = iconic = popular = largest playerbase = WG wants to please them, so BBs borderline OP = optimal strategy to make money WG is not Bioware, Blizzard or Riot Games. They care about money first and the game being great second. That the latter leads to the former hasn't arrived at their executive level yet.