Capra76

I think if you sell Fubuki now you won't get the port slot + T8 Kagero, if it's silver you want hang on to it then sell new Fubuki and Kagero once the split arrives. Another point, all existing modules on the old Fubuki/Kagero will be dismounted for free, if you sell the ships now you'll either have to pay gold to dismount or sell the modules at 50% (?). Edit: Do we know when the split is likely to happen? Or to put it another way do I have time to grind about 150k XP to the Kagero?

Tier 8 last week of October 2016: Amagi 13,794 6.6% ARP Takao 0 0.0% Mogami 11,192 5.4% Atago 10,669 5.1% Shokaku 4,349 2.1% Akizuki 0 0.0% Fubuki 24,016 11.5% Nowaki 0 0.0% Bismarck 35,777 17.2% Tirpitz 23,395 11.2% Admiral Hipper 10,837 5.2% Prinz Eugen 2,269 1.1% Lo Yang 2,524 1.2% Edinburgh 7,434 3.6% Chapayev 4,861 2.3% Mikhail Kutuzov 7,323 3.5% Tashkent 3,573 1.7% North Carolina 23,425 11.3% New Orleans 5,865 2.8% Lexington 4,133 2.0% Benson 12,739 6.1% BB 46.30% CA/CL 29.04% DD 20.58% CV 4.07%

AFAIK the reports do nothing and will not result in a ban, but if a player is trying to connect to a game knowing there's a high chance he'll be disconnected then he is putting his team at a substantial disadvantage and the other players have every right to be aggrieved.

My suggestion: before reporting check out the players profile on WT, if they're stats are okay or better assume it's a one off outside of their control and move on, if their stats are bad then it's likely a recurring issue and a report is deserved.

I managed to get a citadel hit on a Danae today with a USN 127 mm HE shell for crying out loud, that is just wrong.

Which is the key point, BB/DD suffer this kind of damage rarely, CA suffer it frequently.

Playing devils advocate for a moment, why? No other class faces instant annihilation if they make a small mistake, why should it be a unique feature for cruisers?

Just my 2p worth, IMO what's really needed is a major buff to CA survivability against BB rather than an outright nerf to BB, maybe something like 66% citadel damage rather than the current 100%. BB being able to hard counter and one-shot CA is fair enough if the game has a circular rock-paper-scissors structure, but since BB haven't had a counter of their own for a very long time the justification is no longer there.

I think that's debatable, if they take less damage then they'll live longer and instead of bouncing AP off angled BB they'll be wiping out CA with 20k + salvos. Also bear in mind that fewer BB on your team means less competition from them for the enemy HP (i.e. 300,0000 split 3 ways is more than 400,000 split 5 ways). But lets assume that damage output does go down thanks to the smaller total HP pool, even if that did happen what I think you'd see is the average number of kills by BB and their K/D ratios increasing quite substantially, which IMO more than outweighs any potential loss of damage output.

Radar + the new KI captain skill? That will be fun.

That's plausible, I guess the question is whether the effective buff to BB is greater than the effective buff to CA, my gut instinct is the former but it is nothing more than that. My guess is that the majority of the increase in CA players would come from DD rather than BB and the net effect would be more players trying to join BB games.

Is there not a risk that a BB cap would make BB numbers even larger? BB take what proportion of their damage from other BB? I'd guess it's the majority and if it isn't I'm sure it's the largest source but I'm sure you know better than me. What happens if WG artificially limits the main source of damage to BB and instead tries to force in more squishy ships for BB to shoot at? What I think would happen is that BB would live even longer, have even better survival rates and kill even more enemy ships, which sounds to me like even more of a reason to play BB.

We saw much the same attitude before the launch of the RN, and lo and behold damn near half the line is almost unplayable.

There is already an (almost) hard cap of 5 BB per side, if you're ending up in 8 BB per side games then what's happening is that BB numbers are breaking MM.

WG have said time and again that they're not going to balance by queuing, why are people still asking for it?

Realistically, even in optimum circumstances DD are a fairly weak counter to any BB that has mastered the advanced tactic of not sailing in straight lines at a constant speed in torpedo infested waters.

Show me where: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration#High-Explosive "A single fire causes the ship to lose 0.3% of fighting capability per second for battleships, cruisers and destroyers, and 0.4% of fighting capability per second for carriers"

Time for some basic math: Fires do 0.3% of HP damage per second, that equates to 18% of HP over 1 minute per fire, as a worst case scenario with 4 fires going that's 1,080 HP per second on a 90,000 HP ship, so even in an absolute worst case scenario your're going to lose 72% of your hit points to fire. But seriously, when are you ever going to have 4 fires burning for the whole 60 seconds? No DCS 2, no flags, no repair, in fact is it even possible for small/middle caliber guns to start x 4 fires?

But WG have said time and again that they are not going to balance by queuing time, so.............

From the info from Russia thread: Q: Could we use free XP on captain? A: We are considering this possibility among other changes to the skill progression. In addition to using free XP, we would like to change a number of skills whose value is dubious, increase the variability of choices, and lift the 18 (for some players 19) point cap. The new design is already finalized and the changes will appear in one of the next versions. Wait for announcements. So I'm going to say that the leak is probably accurate as of the time of posting, whether it finds its way into the game in this form is another question. Also from the RU thread: Q: Will you limit the number of DDs to at least to 3 per side? The new economy rewards aggressive play, which is difficult with so many DDs around.A: No.1. Doing this will increase the average waiting time - a serious problem since nobody likes waiting.2. Even if we assume that most players would wait, the excess destroyers will form a snowball that would lead to battles with incomplete teams, which is also bad. The destroyers are popular, but so are the battleships. To address the issue we plan to make the cruisers more viable. The aggressive gameplay is still possible, just wait for the destroyers to begin skirmishing before attacking with capital ships. So, reading between the lines, KI looks like it's a tool designed to enable CA to counter DD even harder, but of course the problem isn't that CA can't counter DD, it's that they get reduced to a pink mist by BB if they try. My guess, the leak is going to come into the game 100% as is.

And it's just pure co-incidence that they cause the most damage, have the best survival rates, the most ship kills etc? Really? Also, T9/10, you've got 2 x paper BB in the top 5 slots plus 2 more paper ships before you come to the first real life cruiser, isn't it a bit odd that 3x as "many" fans want to play the completely made up FdG than the real life Baltimore? But assuming you're right and the fans are playing purely because of the name "Bismark" etc. Surely in that case WG could nerf that ships performance down to the level of say the New Orleans, keep the true fans who are playing "because of the name" and get the casual players to go out in cruisers instead.

But are their numbers not a result of their stats? Is the reason for the imbalance not that players want to sail the ships that live the longest, kill the most ships and do the most damage rather than the ones that can get deleted in the first 2 minutes without firing a shot? BB numbers aren't really problematic at T3-4 where the ships are pretty terrible, from T6+ they start to lose their weaknesses at which point their numbers expand out of control. Co-incidence?

I have a few worries about the effect of some of the other skills on DD. Firstly, firefighters "-7% to the risk of fire"; since this is a level 3 skill I guess this isn't the existing 7% comedy fire prevention skill but is instead something useful which must mean it's 7% deducted from the shell's HE chance, how's that going to work with DD caliber guns? Are USN DD with DE really going to end up with a 1% fire chance? What happens if they don't have DE, do they have a 2% chance of their own ships catching fire? Secondly, what about this "two is better" skill? Are the 2 planes going to be in formation or do they take up positions on the other side of the ship? If the former then what's the point of it, if the latter then isn't this a "spot all torpedoes at 5 km button" that lasts 6 minutes? Am I missing something? Is it really going to be possible to set up a Bismark with TIB + Vigilance + hydro + firefighters + manual secondary so that it becomes almost completely immune to both torpedoes and DD guns?

Suggestion for OP: stick to one line of ships at a time, learn how to use captain skills and especially get yourself a captain with vigilance at level 3, then if you are still running into torpedoes the problem is you. Oh, and 3,400 average damage in the Clemson, please tell me how OP torpedoes are again.