Aotearas

WG can't fix stupid (not that I would personally consider them in a position to fix that even if that were possible ...). Teamplay and randoms playing the objectives is just as (un-)common in Operations as it is in Random PvP. The kind of nonsense I see players pull in Operations makes you wonder how they even figured out how to download and install the game in the first place ... I'd actually go out and say it's worse in Operations because the asymmetrical nature of the scenario balance with the bots having far larger numbers on their sides, even if they're mostly lower tier ships (and well ... bots) makes coordination a necessity to successfully clear an Operation and a lack of coordination just exacerbates the number advantage for the bots.

Pretty rare? Damage saturation on DDs is so broken that a torpedo hit on a low module HP section of the ship (bow or aft) instantly triggers the damage saturation and you consistently deal 50% reduced damage even on DDs that never recieved a single digit of damage beforehand. Only way to deal reliable maxdamage with torpedo hits on DDs is if you hit them midships.

Morten, go wash your keyboard with lye soap!

Thou summoned me?

It is a premium. Initially it was meant as the public premium whereas the Alabama was meant for a supertester only reward, hence why two ships of the South Dakota class were worked on by the devs (afaik more or less simultanously). What I don't understand however is why they actually released the Alabama to the public when they actually had another ship of the same class in the working ... which would've also rendered the difficulty of trying to differentiate the ship from the Alabama nonexistant. Surely if WG can placate players about adressing the BB overpopulation without showing results for months, they could've weathered the storm by pointing at the Massachusetts being in development as a public tier VIII US BB premium release? Or is WG really just interested in quick monetary returns and when they noticed people would buy the Alabama, they decided to just sell it to the public without thinking much about the Massachusetts only to now find themselves in a selfmade hole they dug themselves into with their shortsighted decision? (That's a rhetoric question, I'm fairly certain that is exactly what they did!)

Well, I could try a bit harder, but I'm not sure the couple normal working braincells all of us still possess would survive my bumping ...

I don't complain about everything. I complain about problems. BB overpopulation is a problem. And if you'd actually know me instead of just sweeping me along into a blatant effort of generalization, you'd know that the problems I have with the game are quite specific and that I have adressed my opinions and arguments on exactly why those are problems and how I'd suggest to go about fixing them to improve the game. Hell, I've opened topics to simply thank WG and acknowledge them on what I thought were positive changes. Such crying, much sky is falling, wow circle jerk hivemind complaining or whatever degorative description you might think of ... But alas, here comes all-knowing you, trying to ride the high horse telling me I'm the problem because somehow I'm just complaining about everything. But hey, don't let me interrupt you complain about about criers causing the sky to fall or whatnot. Go on, knock yourself out ... I'll just overlook that ignorant arrogance of yours from now on.

Oh yeah, Let's just ignore the BB overpopulation that even WG said is something they don't want ... only to keep introducing more and more BBs into the game, with not a single measure taken to try and solve the MM and subsequent gameplay issues that come with disproportionally more people playing BBs. But hey, instead let's just tell everyone they can just uninstall if they don't like it. That will solve EVERY problem, after all there's no problem if no one's left to tell if something's wrong, aye? What kind of kindergarden problem-solving method is that supposed to be? This game has issues! One of which is an evident, quantifiable overpopulation of BBs. Everyone knows. WG knows. WG openly admitted that's a problem. But I'm somehow supposed to just uninstall the game instead of calling out WG on their hypocrisy of daring to placate people about the present problems with the game they're trying to fix, only to ACTIVELY keep contributing towards the problem? If I see BS, I'll call it BS. Feel free to not care if you want, I do however and I'd rather have a healthy class distribution contributing to a healthy game that more people can enjoy. If you take offense to that, it's really not me who ought to uninstall!

Oh look, more BBs. Just what the game needs right now. Seriously, are the devs even in the same bloody universe here or do they drink themselves into a mirror dimension where the game happens to be hemorrhaging battleships? I can't even ...

It's beautiful, isn't it?

Btw, if anyone is interested, the original: And that's enough Japan for you lot for tonight, have some German Bias instead:

He may word it without the salt, but it's still coming down to being a "why can't my big badass battleship not smite those little destroyers" and "blahblah less historical blahblah". The simple fact he's chosen a mindset of how the game should be (DDs shouldn't be stealthy or setting BBs on fire, etc.) as to catering to his personal demands of gameplay rather than accepting that some things (like detectability) are simply game mechanics that are a tool for people to use (including himself ...) is what makes a person a BBaby, or really just a baddie, regardless of what class they prefer the most (it's just that BBabies are easily the most prominent ones because the lot of them saw some documentaries about the Bismarck or whatever and feel entitled to just beat down everything in their mighty battleships as if they owned the seas). Asking how the game works and asking why the game isn't working as they think it should is a fundamental difference. One is inevitable ignorance by lack of experience and knowledge. The other is simple arrogance. Do note how he finds being shot at out of nowhere "as if by magic" to be unnecessarily frustrating ... with seemingly not a care in the world about the opposing player whose ship is like to sustain crippling amounts of damage if he couldn't use his stealth. Welp, let's give all ships battleship concealment regardless of class, size or displacement (the fact that for some cruisers this would actually be an improvement is ludicrous enough as it is ffs!) and let's see which ships are unnecessarily frustrating to play then ... I could go on for a while about instant gratification, a sense of entitlement and a lack of sportsmanship or what I'd consider a natural level of competitiveness, but that would blow my comment way out of proportion and I'm not even sure if that rant would even fit into a single comment ...

-3% to your ship's detectability +4% maximum dispersion for enemy ships firing at you +100% XP

I may or may not have contributed to the BB HE craze ... We had one of those special guys who though going through the middle channel would be a good idea ... which immediately threw away the DD advantage we had with him locked playing peek-a-boo in the channel. Both flanks however fought one another to a standstill ... or rather our side fought one another to a standstill and the other one was, I'd say fighting some and then avoiding one another. At least the BBs from both teams were rather contend with not pushing on the other flank and letting the cruisers do the tanking (as usual), which quickly died down due to ... well, cruisers sinking or disengaging because they're almost sunk. Our Yorck who presumably fought a good deal given his base XP at one point decided to just screw it, travelled across the map from the other flank and went to hug the mapborder on our side of the map, as far away from any enemy as he could get. Seemed a bit excessive but quite frankly I don't think I can blame him from what I saw them doing (or rather: not doing) on their side. The teams I had today were horrible (hello weekend ...). Anyhoot, our flank was actually locked in a bit of a stalemate, a little push here, a counterpush there, kiting a bit, then they disengage and kite - good 'ole tug-o-war really. Not many broadsides, so I decided to switch from BB mode into the CA drive and light people up instead (and that's why I absolutely LOVE the Scharnhorst, she can play like a light BB or a super-heavy CA depending on what you need!). Burn BBs, burn! * *Kantai Collection needs a Scharnhorst Turns out, HE can melt stealbeams and soon after their flank collapsed, allowing us to push into their base into the other flank's back, upon which they collapsed rather swiftly. Totally didn't carry mtm or anything, no no no.

Happens. Always meh to be on the recieving end, but typically you also do it to others. Imho the range of RNG involvement ought to be cut down a bit so it's not an extreme spectrum with everything splashing all the way up to lolnuking the target ...

For the average random bob? Not so much. For skilled players? Abuse it maliciously!

Precisely. The reaction to that debacle with the RN BBs was already telling enough. If WG seriously learned nothing from that and does it again, ... might just be time to leave the sinking ship.

Jokes aside, you want to learn the game before trying to decide on which tier X ships you want, or which class to grind for first. Play cruisers and destroyers aswell to get a feel of how the game and the different classes work. Those two classes are also easier to get started with than battleships.

InB4We'rejusttestingthings & don't trust dataminers. WG is going completely crazy with the whole gimmick nonsense. Let me tell you something WG, if you actually work on unique ship lines that aren't carbon copies of existing ships, it's a lot easier to balance them without having to resort to gimmicks to differentiate the clones from the original ships.

Would be easy if not 8/10 BBs in Akizuki's typical MM had hydro ... just had a game where I missed the mark by 700 torpedo damage ... And has anyone a definitive timeframe for the collection? I haven't read any specific duration for the collection on the news, the closest thing is the 15-28 September timeframe given for the gifts, but I don't trust WG to not have a different timetable for the collection and they simply missed to publish it ...

That is not what happened however.

So, typical MM I see these past weeks: 5 BBs per team, 2 CAs/CLs and 5 DDs. Sometimes there's a CV and only 4 DDs, very rarely the teams have more than 2 cruisers. Almost never there's less than 5 BBs per team. When will we finally get a hardcap on BBs (no more than 3 per team)? It's really, really annoying to play cruisers right now. Every BB drops whatever they were doing and goes for the cruisers, easy kill. And between the loads of DDs and occasional CV, a cruiser is permanently spotted unless he actively hides from the enemy. You're effectively forced to just maxrange HE kite everything if you want to have a somewhat decent game and even then, all it takes is a BB getting lucky with RNG and a single shell hits and citadels you for a third of your HP regardless of range or dodging. @Sub_Octavian @MrConway @Kandly ... where are those measures against the BB overpopulation you're talking about for so long? I'd like to hear some dates because right now it looks like those changes will come in about roughly never.

At least against cruisers without a heal (so almost all tier VIII or lower cruisers), BBs firing HE is only marginally less destructive as those cruisers can't just heal back fire damage. Against high tier cruisers with heal, it's welcome though. Mostly because it doesn't stay at 5 DDs per side very long as they grind another down early in the game (unless MM utterly botched the type distribution and created a horribly mismatched DD balance, thankfully MM has improved a good deal in that regard, though still far from perfect). BBs tend to live a good deal longer, especially if they camp at the back as they so typically do these days. Also given a DDs typical engagement ranges, having 5 of them somewhere on the map still only means those that are very close to you can be actively harmful since as opposed to BBs, they can't shoot across the map (Shima 20km torpedoes notwithstanding, but those are stupidly easy to dodge).

Actually, if all BBs were to engage more aggressively and get stuck in, the situation for cruisers and DDs would be even worse. 10 BBs in relatively close proximity is an awful, lot of ordnance flying around and the same rule still applies, between having the option to shoot at a tough BB or a squishy cruiser, which target would you shoot at? Now multiply that answer by five and then imagine you're one of two, perhaps three cruisers, only this time they're even closer, thus having an easier time hitting you. It's not really the BBs being the problem (though I have issues with recent BB powercreep), it's mostly just the sheer numbers of BBs that pose a problem.

No seriously, that was verbatim the response I got when I had asked a BB why he wouldn't push up with the rest of the fleet (during a game that we had essentially already won at that stage and he had naught to fear but perhaps a bit scratch on the paintjob).