dasCKD

I forgot the saber, but here's the two: http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=61324513 Bonus images at the end of the link ;)

It's on my Zao. No real point on my other ships.

They flash slightly, which is in my opinion not nearly enough of an indication considering the flashing is both easy to miss and could indicate a dozen things like reaching a location or running out of ammunition. It's really poor right now, and a very obvious and distinct marker would make the game experience much more pleasant.

I was talking about interface, so obviously they'll be no mention of a game mechanic. You do realize that you could strafe as well, right?

Problem resolved. Cross browser compatibility really is a pain. Their track record does not imbue me with much faith quite frankly. I might have to swallow my pride and acknowledge their game design prowess when they come out with their change, either chasing away all the remaining carrier players or completely shifting the meta in some ridiculous way. They'd probably make auto drop as strong as Pape's manual drops or something silly like that.

On the one hand, I see your point there. War gaming balances certain ships around the assumption that they would be taking certain skills i.e. balancing the carriers assuming that they'll take air supremacy or balancing SN DDs around the assumption that they'll take AFK. I would be happy if the skills that fundamentally change the way a ship operates in such a way that said skills are completely mandatory should simply be removed.

It would be nice in the midtiers, but I wanted to keep the opening post strictly on the interface. The interface and the unresponsive commands alone already accounts for much of the grief carrier captains experiences in my opinion.

I'll play a few games in my Taiho and create some gifs of me stomping on Yuugumos and Z-43s. In fact, that just gave me an idea for the next thing I should post to Pixiv. Well, I play high tiered carriers and I generally give a generous breath before hitting the target and I can thanks to how big higher tiered ships are. The inverted drop in fact incentives me to do this. Ultimately, I would find the torpedo activation line only useful every ten or twenty games where I'm performing an insanely risky drop against an island hugging battleship. For newer players though it's a massive incentive and would help them perform far better. I invested a lot of time and effort into learning the activation distance basically be heart for when I choose to drop destroyers, but I am one who would prefer it if carriers were less exclusive and I say this as one of the few who benefit to an insane degree with the current meta. It's hardly unfair, it's a mechanic that exists for surface ships. I'm just proposing to extend it to carriers. Those players who calls carriers the artillery of World of Warships are pretty much all laughing stocks anyways. You'd be surprised actually. I do spend some time coaching newer players on carrier controls, and it's one of the things that they struggle with the most. They probably would learn the distance eventually, but we lose a lot of new carrier players over that learning period. Worse, we end up producing those carrier players who continues to autodrop at tier 8 and 9. It's depressingly common in the games I play. I generally approximate it by distance, as both my IJN and USN carriers uses torpedo acceleration. I can confirm that the torpedoes activates on a timer.

The simplest way to address the issue would probably be to lower the performance characteristics of low caliber HE (alpha, fire chance, speed perservation) whilst raising those of higher caliber cruisers. It is a bit of a drastic fix however. Overall, IFHE has thrown a wrench into the works so to speak.

I know you're trolling, but at least pick a carrier with dive bombers for the story.

Considering who he is, I assume that he's trolling.

They have big guns, thick armor, and are bristling with secondaries. But they're not special enough. Sure. Small shells that overpenetrate also do less damage than large shells that overpenetrate. The kinetic force is also largely irrelevant. Navy shells depends on explosives and not kinetic force to cause the majority of their damage. A small shell that overpenetrates a ship in real life would also have similar effect to a large shell that overpenetrates an area (A hole on a ship has similar effect whether or not the hole is 130 mm across or 400 mm, the hole location is far more important than the hole's size) whilst in the game overpenetration is calculated based on the alpha value of the shell. Yet another game mechanic that benefits battleships above all other classes. A destroyer in game that has an overpenetrating salvo, even if it goes through the superstructure or the ship's bow, is already half dead whilst in real life the destroyer would probably only take superficial damage as long as the engine or magazines aren't punctured. Badly armored carriers have survived battles still operational because the shells that were fired at them mostly overpenetrated. You also can already detonate destroyers, so I'm not even sure what that last part was supposed to be addressing. Battleships need no compensation . If we wanted to make the results of overpenetration values more true to life, then we should be leaning towards something like 1 or 2% the damage of an exploding hit. Yes! Let's all turn battleships into British cruisers! WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?!? Cruisers are obviously still too popular, let's buff battleships some more! They're big ships. Big ships get heals. What's there not to get? Bigger ship. More modules. More things to repair. More things to get ready. The reload time for the consumables are fine as they are. Also, bigger ships, more men, more supplies, better compartimentation. Battleships should cost far more to run than cruisers and destroyers. Their consumables should also be more expensive because bigger ship. Makes sense, right? The Izumo also has a pseudo-turtleback. The Montana does not have better shell alpha than the Yamato. Or the Kurfurst. The Yamato is powerful enough in her current state, she does not need to be returned to her previous state. I'm pretty sure that the heal was there back in the days when USN battleships weren't a thing and Saipans ran with 2x6 torpedo squads and HE didn't care about armor. The game has indeed changed, so has the Yamato. Would you advocate to buffing the Zao's HP and RoF back to Senjo's levels and returning HE to its old state? The Americans already have the most powerful battleship consumables. Battleships also shouldn't have radar, hunting destroyers is the job for cruisers and other destroyers. The ships already have national flavors. The Japanese has extremely accurate long ranged guns. The Americans have monstrous AA. The Germans have their armor. Battleships already get rewarded plenty for tanking. They also get rewarded for citadel hits against a cruiser's bow. They don't need a buff here either. The game has changed again and again to try to coax battleships to perform their role as midliners with their cruisers. They haven't changed their behavior. Further changes are unjustifiable.

Okay, first thing's first. Style your posts correctly. It's nigh-impossible to read. I would post videos of Atagos and Pensacolas being wiped off the map at 20 kilometers by battleship salvos, but that hardly addresses the issue. Your point lacks a through line that would communicate the argument to the readers and you bring up historical references that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the points being addressed. The maximum range of battleships in real life has no bearing to the accuracy of the battleships in the game. By what logic? Why would some arbitrary effective range dictate some range where every shell is expected to behave a certain way. The layout of the armor on battleships actually makes them impervious or at least moderately resistant to many HE shells in the game considering that a large majority of armor plates on a battleship will take literally 0 damage from a hit from a cruiser or destroyer of comparable tier. Yes, there was not a single flammable object on the ENTIRE Yamato. Like, say, gunpowder. Or Fuel. Or humans. Or that gigantic wooden deck of hers. Entirely nonflammable. Sure. That's because they didn't need anything special at those tiers. They were plenty powerful. Why should the heal be a special ability of the battleships. Cruisers have close to the size of battleships in the game in most cases, so why should the battleship get anything special? They are also plenty of other ships with dual purpose guns but no defensive fire. Ah yes. Who needs fighters more? The torpedo boat hunters, or the class that is meant to be their prey? I WONDER. Yes, they got reduced in effectiveness. To add insult to injury, demolitions expert now confers bonus fire chance to the secondary batteries that all battleships have in excess as well. But sure, let's plug our ears and claim that this all is a battleship nerf. Never mind that the effective AA has been buffed or that manual AA can now be taken with a 10 point captain, this is an injustice against battleships! SURE! No they don't. Cruisers are destroyer hunters, but some of them have battleship levels of maneuverability. That mod is reserved for those cruisers. Battleships DO NOT need it. So you come in here, claiming that battleships are unbalanced. Yet every single demand you make of War Gaming will invariably make the battleships more powerful than they already are. Do excuse me, but you have to try a little harder than that.

It's also not fair on the Germans. The Americans have carriers, which are admittedly playing second fiddle to the IJN. Even so, the advantages of a team with a carrier compared to a team without is simply too vast.

Just join a clan and have a training room match.

Ranked season 6: pay to win is coming up. As this is the case, I am using the new free-XP system to get my Saipan's captain up to speed. Air supremacy is given, but I have the option for some extra tier 4 skills. Considering the way I play, it would be prudent to improve the performance of my AA batteries. Concealment expert is still tempting however, and that would help improve my Saipan's survivability as well. Now, what skill should I choose for my Saipan for this ranked season?

I have Aircraft Servicing Expert, then Torpedo Acceleration, then Basic Firing Training, then the Air Supremacy skill.

HE does percentage damage based on the saturation of a module. If you shoot at a blackened (depleted) module then you do massively diminished damage. As HE detonates on impact, it transfers damage directly to the module that it hits. As almost no cruiser has the citadel as the outermost layer, you will be hitting a semi-blackened region which will result in less damage. Go shoot battleship HE at a cruiser in a training room, the damage is catastrophic as long as you hit a module that is tied to the ship's primary HP. A cruiser's shell suffers the same penalties, otherwise we would have Minotaurs and Zaos ripping battleships to shreds by aiming salvo after salvo into the superstructure. It also depends on what you hit. If you hit a gun module, then you transfer no damage as the gun module is external to the ship and therefore does not share a hitbox with the main ship. The odd values that you are seeing is the result of WoWS's nature as a game with a healthbar system and not the way they model physics. With health bars, modeling physics is basically an irrelevance.

The Fuso has a 356 mm gun. The Nagato has a 410 mm gun, just like half the IJN battleships. Didn't even need to look the second value up.

Yes there is. The damage is tied to the target module, the remaining module HP, and the target location. If the shell overpenetrated, then the damage is lower. If the module retains the shell, then the module receives full penetration damage. If the module is an engine or magazine module, then the target ship receives cited damage. There's no reason for any ship to be hit with a torpedo and then remain operational. A flooding ship would have to stay still until the hole is repaired. There was no magic repair button in real life. A ship set on fire is basically combat nonoperational. Are you sure there's not an issue with your aim? Citation needed. If a shell goes in one side and out the other, why would the building be destroyed?

Was your destroyer actually a strong destroyer that actually necessitated that level of attention? Did you at least have a Shiratsuyu or a Leningrad? I'm just wondering.

That's unnecessarily cruel. Kinds of reminds me of a match I had earlier, one of the greatest games ever in my Benson, had to carry our 47% WR carrier against a 70% WR carrier. The enemy Fletcher got nuked. Point is, if you aren't willing to pack defensive AA or burn a smoke to throw the CV's drop off, then it's not like you would have fared any better in a tier 9 destroyer. Just saying.

Personal admission, I play ships in clan training a lot so when I receive orders over coms I reflexively follow it until I catch myself about a minute later why I'm following such a remarkably stupid order.