Culiacan_Mexico

I found myself playing a class a ships I don't particularly well at, chasing a kill at the expense of winning the game. I having take a step back and reevaluated myself; and I simply won't follow these missions in the future. If I complete one fine, if not, also fine. My interest is in team play and winning. These mission don't promote that, so they don't work for me. I am not suggesting any changes to the missions, as they probably work well for others.

CVs can ruin games because they are broken. The balance between the US and Japanese CVs isn't good, the user interface is poor, the learning curve seems to break CV player into two groups... really good and fairly bad. WG has tried a number of things to address this issue, but arguably might have made it worse. This was suppose to be the year (2016) of the CV, but nothing has come to fruition. WG seems to have taken the stance of not added anymore CVs until the issues are addressed.

They are not going to fix it.

Ok, what you are saying is you want a game where only Battleships have a major impact on the outcome of the battle. Why would anyone play a DD or CA? Wouldn't most just want to play BBs? Wouldn't that get boring after a while?

Isn't a BB heavy 'Meta' unhistoric? In most cases, didn't BB have escorts? ----------------------------- Battle of TsushimaJapan Total: 89 ships4 battleships27 cruisers21 destroyers37 torpedo boats plus gunboats, and auxiliary vessels ----------------------------------- Order of Battle Second Battle of Guadalcanal (Third Savo) 14-15 November 1942 Task Force 64 DD Walke DD Benham DD Preston DD Gwin BB Washington BB South Dakota

Game balancing here. A CV engagement would normally happen at the range depicted in WOWS maps.

Really? Cruisers and Destroyers fought every where during WW2, while BB vs BB engagements were rare. If you wanted to control the sea lanes and supply and retain control of a large ocean territory CAs and DDs were essential.

This game isn't a simulator nor does it pretend to be. 'Historically', CVs would dominate the later tiers... and the game would be horrible. This is a fantasy game (Orcs, dwarfs, humans,etc) at sea with a dash of history. Nothing more.

Why would players interested in a BB heavy meta be more interested "in naval warfare and ships"?

I mostly play DDs and while the current 'Meta' of fewer DDs, CA and CVs works well for me personally, I am not sure it necessarily great for the game or the community as a whole.

?

Thank you, I had no idea what poi meant or how it was used. Although I am an old and slightly grumpy old man... I like it.

Earlier this year, I believe it was Sub_Octavian who said that BBs represented 34% of all ships played; and that they were right on the edge of being over played. A jump of 34% to 46% looks like a dive off a cliff.

Maybe another nerf to CV and DDs would help.

Maybe it is just me, but do these number seem to indicate a balance issue?

Game balance.

About 1 chance in 60 for me to be detonated. Not annoying to me... more anticlimactic. I am not sure why detonations are part of the game, as it is not a game balancing factor nor is it skill based.

"...Make IJN destroyers great again!..." This will be nerfed.

Hate it. Prefer the Wakatake with dual center mounted launchers.

ThinderChief, on 16 November 2016 - 07:58 PM, said: ...players have different priorities... What are yours? ThinderChief, on 16 November 2016 - 07:58 PM, said: The whole point being none of YOU bragging in forums are capable of winning it for the entire team.... ...It is rather arrogant to pretend... I don't believe there is anyone who can win constantly 1 vs 12, but on the other hand, my actions, be they good or bad, do effect the team and the out come of the game. When I play poorly, I handicap my team and force others to pick up their game. When I do well, I increase the chances that we will win.

ThinderChief, on 16 November 2016 - 03:02 AM, said: Listen mate, ANYONE calling "stats" looses all credibility to my eyes...: ​ ...I managed to get over a kill ratio of 1.1 with a WZ121 medium tank... ThinderChief, on 16 November 2016 - 03:52 AM, said: ... since i'm only at the 430th game and do not know the ships, I don't see why I should take your opinions on my stats into account... Since you admit you don't know the ships, why wouldn't you take other peoples opinion into account? ThinderChief, on 16 November 2016 - 04:14 AM, said: ...stats has got little to do with this... Stats can be used as an indicator. I am not comfortable in the Gnevny, and my stats show that. Win rate is server average, while my main battery hit rate is below server average. Damage is ok, but not really good. I am not using this ship to anywhere near its potential. Gnevny My Stats Win Damage Avg Kills MBH TH50.44% 28,275 0.9 40% 12 Server Stats50.15 19,161 0.7 43% 10%

I think they have to... if they want to cover 'ships battles' this way. Balancing requirements.

Last two weeks EU... the four sisters. Functionally very much the same... the main difference is the skill level of the players. The Minekaze is the average player base... usually with less than 50 games in the ship. Kamikaze R and Fūjin have players with hundreds of games in these ships, and they have learned to play them well. I played both the Kamikaze R and Minekaze, and my win rate is higher in the Minekaze. Win rate Damage XP K/D Kills Survival MBH TH Kamikaze R 57.96% 39,191 1,135 1.9 1.2 36% 49% 11% Fūjin 57.24% 37,633 1,246 1.9 1.2 38% 47% 11% Minekaze 52.96% 30,063 857 1.3 0.9 29% 45% 10% Kamikaze 51.76% 31,699 1,060 1.3 0.9 27% 45% 10%

While I agree that radar/sonar should not break cover just concealment, realism isn't the goal. Gameplay/balancing is.