Capra76

Nope, if that were true the good players would still be posting averages of 90,000+ and they're just not, 70,000 seems to be the absolute maximum over any reasonable run of games. Take a look at the top 10 players 3 weeks ago: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20160423/eu_week/ranking_ship_jp.html the highest average in there is 115,000 2 further scores over 90,000 and 2 over 80,000 4 more over 60,000 lowest score is 43,000 (and that is over 20,000 less than next lowest) now the results for last week: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20160507/eu_week/ranking_ship_jp.html highest score: 78,000, and that's over a very small number of matches one other player over 60,000 lowest score, tied at 38,000. I'm sorry, but that is far more than just bad players dragging the average down, that's the top players down 20,000+ damage.

Quick Google also shows 175 Fletcher class destroyers were built compared to 4 Iowa, 2 Yamato and 0 Montana and Izumo, there are also quite a few DD classes not in the game that were built in large numbers.

I'm pretty sure that the 60%+ WR players are all there because they play most of their games in divisions with other good players, a good CV paired with a couple of good BB is going to affect the WR far more than a good BB player on his own. Personally I'd suggest that as a solo player 20% is too high, even the bots can get ~43% and so many end up being one-sided games I find it hard to believe that even the strongest players can influence more than 10% of games.

I don't think so, 5% of T10 HP equals roughly 5,000 HP, if we make the conservative assumption that IJN DD cause 2/3 of ship launched torpedo damage that would imply a reduction in damage output ITRO 7,500, not the 10,000 - 15,000 we are seeing. In any event my main objection is the the claim that the changes are "rather minor" when the class is losing 25% of its damage output, that is emphatically not a rather minor change.

Dear BB Captains, The caps are not on line J, please go somewhere useful. Yours faithfully, DD Mafia

This looks wrong to me. Pre-nerf Shimi was averaging low to mid 50's damage and Kagero late 30's to early 40's, post-nerf Shimi's down to low 40's and Kagero late 20's, which is a huge, huge nerf. Even accounting for the fact that IJN DD aren't the only torpedo source it's hard to reconcile about 5,000 dmg reduction from BB to 10,000 - 15,000 lower damage output from IJN DD.

From a UK perspective I wonder where this stands WRT section 127 of the communications act 2003: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or You could do proper, real world, jail-time for this kind of stuff.

This is actually quite a tricky question, because I think the level 4 skill you want with a 10 point captain might not be the same as the skill you want with a 15 point captain. With a 10 point captain SE is the way to go in an T8/9 ship since 3,200/3,600 HP is a huge increase and hitting anything (with invisifire) from >10km with USN DD guns is pretty much impossible anyway so an improved fire chance doesn't make much difference. With a 15 point captain DE might make more sense as a level 4 skill, because you will now have the level 5 concealment expert perk and this reduces your invisifire detection range substantially meaning you can actually hit BB and even CA from stealth and the substantial fire damage increase starts to make more sense.

They would probably have been better off removing the 20 km torps altogether, with the target acquisition module and vigilance the early warning you now get on them is so extreme even a T4/5 BB captain should be able to avoid them, really the only thing they do at the moment is make Shimi a painboat/free XP sink until you unlock the 12km weapons. Probably the best bet would've been to drop the 93-1 down to 16km/62kt and kept detection at 1.9km for all 3, which would've given 3 reasonable choices and rewarded closer range gameplay without crucifying players who feel the need to launch from longer ranges.

"I feel like the Kagero got hit much harder than the shimakaze. 10km torps are a straight downgrade from the Fubuki, due to having 1 less torp and less flexibility due to only two launchers.............." Kagero at least has quite a lot better stealth than Shimi and with one tier lower MM can possibly make better use of the F3's, and with the less crippling T9 repair costs you can perhaps afford to take a few more risks.

Ok, thanks for the info, didn't know if you'd tried them on the PT server or maybe experimented Friday/Saturday - completely missed the point about x2 XP, which should've tipped me off.

Interesting video Flamu, I presume that was from the 15 games on Sunday when you averaged 71,000, without that game your average would've been 58,000 compared to the 86,000 you average over the long term. Was there a lot of experimenting with other torpedoes during those games or some other factor that made you 15,000 - 30,000 average damage weaker?

What he doesn't mention is that his average over 15 games yesterday (and I assume that was when that game was played) was 71,000, which is 15,000 below his long term average on that ship, and without all those compliant enemies in that one game he would've been averaging 57,000. Now maybe there was some experimentation with the F3's in there which dragged the average down, but he was top of the leader-board yesterday and no-one on any server has managed to post a daily average in line with what was previously achievable so I'd like to see more than one game before we conclude that nothing has happened.

Is that the real problem, not that Shimi is good but just that most people find T10's long range sniping contest boring and DD are the only ship that are vaguely entertaining to play in that environment.

Take a look at yesterdays results for Shimi's top players https://warships.today/vehicle/4282267344/eu/Shimakaze The top 2 are Flamu played 15 games and averaged 71,000 damage, he normally averages 86,000. Littletigru played 13 games and averaged 58,000 damage, his norm is 80,000. It's pretty obvious that even the best players have taken a big hit to their damage output and it isn't just a case of the dross dragging the average down.

I'm not 100% sure, but with expert marksman and/or the main battery modification I think you can get the turn rate down to the point that you don't out-turn the guns, which is the most important thing in a DD v DD fight. With RU DD detection ranges you should never get into a fight with one, if you get into a <6 km fight with a USN DD you will lose, if you can keep a USN DD at > 7km you can win, either way most of the time a DD fight usually comes down to who's got the better CA backup.

The biggest whine the BB mafia came up with when it was pointed out that DD actually didn't do much damage was "but we have to turn broadside on and get citadelled" so I'm not sure that argument works, and if they do turn into you then surely that's something that could be exploited. Don't get me wrong, I think they've gone too far with the torpedo nerf, but the guns are far from useless - use them against CA who are shielding BB then torpedo BB, and if you encounter a BB captain who has evolved a rudimentary intelligence and can press A + D in a somewhat unpredictable fashion shoot him too.

Interesting idea, but unless it's got about 60 seconds flight time, with the recent torpedo nerfs it'd make DD less like warships and more like suicide machines.

Khabarovsk can't invisifire, Gearing can but unless you are firing at a battleship moving slowly in a straight line you won't be hitting anything, Shimi (with AFT) can invisifre from about 9.6 km to 11.7 km and consistently hit cruisers at max range. If you're in an IJN DD you don't get into a gunfight with another DD unless you absolutely have to, but if other DD aren't about you can do serious harm to CA/BB.

We got our backsides handed to us anyway so gg & wp to your guys.

Not something the BB mafia have shown themselves to be particularly good at.

You claimed that Shima was bottom end damage wise because of all the bad players in it, which implies that you believe good players should be able to obtain results comparable to BB/CA, I simply demonstrated that they can't Source: http://wows-numbers.com/ships/ Why did you edit my post to remove the part concerning the top 5%, which seems to pretty much disprove your "mediocre players" theory, if Shima captains are on average much worse than others why aren't good Shima captains able to get so much more out of their ships? Again, do you have any actual evidence to support your theory that Shima players are worse than others?

Can you provide any evidence for this? If we look at the top 5% of players the average damage is: Shimakaze - 81,000; Zao - 108,000; Yamato - 119,000; so are you saying that the very best Shimi players are still much worse than their CA/BB equivalents? If we look at the damage gain for the top 5% over average players the results are: Shimakaze - 52%; Gearing - 60%; Khabarovsk - 74%; Yamato - 46%; Zao - 59%; which if anything implies that the average Shimi captain is getting more out of the ship than most and certainly doesn't make a compelling case that Shimi players are worse than any others.

I wonder if part of the problem is all the captains with the TA skill who are locked into the much reduced type 93's if so a free captain re-spec is urgently required, even if they only free up the points allocated to TA. We'll have to keep this under review, but first impressions are that WG have gone too far.

Jingles put this one up a few days ago: Single hit from secondary gun set Atago on fire and eventually sank him, that would now turn him pink.