_Teob_

I play a Khabarovsk a lot so I may be biased but I would say that without the speed, they wouldn't be usable. That "very decent armour" means you take insane dmg from AP and the crappy concealment means that you will get spotted long before you spot anything yourself. I mean all an IJN/US ship needs to do is keep you spotted and you have to disengage. Not to mention that the size and manoeuvrability makes you quite tasty for CVs.

Torp'd from the second line, friendly ship couldn't manoeuvre freely and might have not had DR up - OP got flagged pink. I see no problem here, working as intended.

I would pay quite a bit of cash for a tier X permanent camo. Even if it just gave me the 3% lower detection and say 5% lower repair costs or something.

Do not believe this man! I have played with him in divisions and he's a phenomenal player. One of the most calculated captains out there.

Why are people saying the Shima is slower than the Gearing? Unless I am missing something, the Shima's max speed is 39kn to the Gearing's 36kn. Like Kurbain said, the problem with the Shima was two-fold: 1) Lots of them around which meant constant torpedo walls. That was a major negative aspect of high tier gameplay. Nobody wants to push into a 15+ torp wall that is very hard to dodge (potentially) 2) High Alpha potential. Basically if you eat a Shima torp in a dd, you are dead and in a CA your game is sort of ruined and the Shima can fire salvoes of 15. I am genuinely interested in balancing the Shimas. I don't want any ship to be nerfed or buffed out of the game. I mean for most of the game's existence the tier 10 triple threat has been Shimas, Zaos and Yamatos. I guess that because the Shima was (is?) the most popular (even I have one) of the 3 and had the biggest impact on the game it just got a lot more attention. I guess the 12km torps are still viable, right?

Honestly I'd have to see for myself. If you do get random pens do to the way the armour is laid out then I would say the Pensa is better. I also am curious about the shell arcs. Based on just the vid (and my memory) Pensacola arcs seemed flatter to me. We'll see but I think that compared to the other premium ships, the Indy seems rather balanced.

I mean sure if pay2win means they both get left in the dust by both the Myoko and the Shchors... Also I believe that Flamu does mention that the armor on the Pensa is better as well.

So wait, this is a topic created to complain that WG is potentially trying to fix the matchmaking or at least get an accurate picture of what we (the whole community) thinks about it?!? They are actively trying to do something about it and the OP decided that's not acceptable. But the matchmaking is also apparently unacceptable as well. Seriously WG can't win with you people. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

And your assumption is totally wrong. Go to warships.today and just select some of the top players. Then just check their solo WR. You will find that there are quite a few that have over 60% WR. Some have considerably higher than that. For example, Admiral_noodle who's been active in this very topic (I chose him because I know he's a good player) has over 70% WR in his solo matches in his past 145 games.

yeah this is what I mean. Similarly to detonation. It happens so rare that I almost don't feel it's worth discussing lol That's not to say the OP isn't right, the compensation doesn't cover the costs and I can't quite see a reason why it doesn't at the very least cover the credit cost. Even if just what dmg was done to you (like if you eat a friendly torp at 5k hp and die, you should receive the equivalent of those 5k points of dmg).

Totally disagree with this out of principle. Percentages pulled out of thin air are never good. In fact your own stats disagree with you as your WR for the past 170 games is 71.8% (which is amazing ) Totally agree with your point. That's why I said it sounds like an excuse to me. You are pretty much spot on imo.

How often do you people get TK'd? I can't remember the last time it happened to me. I did get shot at by a fubuki recently that set me on fire (that I couldn't put out as we were pushing a point and I was worried about torpedoes) but that didn't kill me either.

Where does this 20% of games thing come from? I can give you examples right now of people with a win rate of over 60%.

Ok, fair enough but the DM also fires a lot more often than anything else, right? And I usually fire a salvo, if it hits, I continue with that firing solution, if it doesn't I adjust but my second salvo is usually on point and subsequent ones are as well. I am not sure the second salvo missing is enough to justify the massive difference that you guys (that can aim properly) are seeing.

I don't buy into this luck thing. Yes, you can have an unlucky streak. Or even an unlucky day (Monday was the worst day for me ever with a 48% win rate) but in a long enough period of time and with enough games under your belt, it evens out. Fact of the matter is that, while there are some games that you cannot win due to sheer luck or your team crumbling, your win rate does say something about your performance. Just play with/against people who have high win rates and you'll see yourself getting carried/steamrolled. The notion that their win rate is artificially inflated somehow is silly and somewhat insulting. It sounds to me like an excuse. Someone with a 60%+ win rate over a good number of games is a good player no doubt about it.

While the MM might not be ideal at times, people's reactions now are bordering on the insane. I rarely have a match where people don't complain about mm, even when it IS balanced. I had a Myoko player the other day that started spewing abuse at me after he complained about the MM in a balanced match to which I replied that it's fine and he will on occasion see tier 9 ships in a tier 7. He started saying something about "fanbois" and other drivel. On other occasions in domination matches, I pointed out that we have a DD advantage (in both type and numbers) and that we just need to cap and avoid open battle with the enemy team's superior BBs and a couple of people immediately pulled the noob card on me. People lose their sh!t for any slight imbalance (perceived or real) - especially if you don't agree with them. In the OP however, moving one of the Yamatos on the other team would have been pretty much perfect balance (and move the undivisioned Tirpitz to the enemy team). The MM seems to now know how to handle divisions or, at the very least, they confuse it enough that it does stuff like

For better or for worse, I took DE (on my Hindenburg captain). I found that without Def AA, I couldn't shoot down enough planes when they decided to do a drop on me anyway. And you still don't get that many CVs at tier 10 (although there does seem to be a growing number but it might be because of the mission). I think we can all agree that the MK is a firestarter, right? Well with DE, the Hindenburg has 1% less fire chance and an extra second on its reload. Not a massive difference. I found that, with DE and the Hindenburg's rate of fire and number of guns, I can still deal with severely angled targets. Or at the very least set them on fire which panics a lot of people and makes them make mistakes (e.g. showing broadside while trying to run). Obviously the vast majority of my dmg is still from AP but for me DE is situationally better than AFT.

This is exactly what I mean. Most people seem to have a lower hit chance with the DM and I am not sure that should be the case. I mean why would it? The Pensacola arcs aren't that much better but let's say that would make the DM too good, but a slight buff doesn't seem out of place.

You think it would make that much of an impact? I am trying to figure out how to push the DM's dmg a bit higher without making it OP. I feel like the DM should have the highest dmg at T10 because the DMG is less incisive most of the time. The whole dot dmg should have higher dps than burst dmg. What is your hit rating on it now? And also what is your hit rating on like the Zao and the Hindi/Moskva?

Cheers! Well that's sodding dumb. I feel it should be a flat number. *finished derailing the thread now

Yesterday I had a game in the DM where I shot down 70 planes. I didn't get clear skies though. I don't understand what you need for that achievement.

I decided to necro this as I wanted to run something past the people that know what they are talking about. What do we think of the Des Moines if it had Pensacola's arcs? I mean the flight time is still slower than pretty much all other 203mm guns but they are slightly flatter. Thoughts?

I quite liked the Baltimore. Seemed to have really good armour. Only played like 10 matches in it as I free xp'd after that but my average dmg in it was around 60k iirc.

But wouldn't that take away some of the fun? I mean I kinda like asymmetric matches. It's less boring.