Aotearas

*whooosh* ... That was the 'Le Fantasque' popping by to say "bonjour" at 45 knots.

I'm sorry, but if a DD is moving predictably in a straight line to get hit by a BB at 16km distance, then the ball is thoroughly on his side. Same with a cruiser bow or whatever other target. I'm not sure how long the flighttime for Yamato shells is for those distances, but that's several seconds during which a small course correction WILL make any shells fired at them miss. Also not something unique to the Yamato. I can and will hit straightlining DDs or angled CAs at long distances just the same in most of my unlocked BBs. If you want to gripe at the Yamato, find something that actually is unique to the Yamato, not unique to players who think just a couple pretty digits before the "km" is a measure of safety. Again not something unique ot the Yamato, or BBs in general. The cause for that isn't the fact the Yamato has excellent frontal firepower and armour, it's the common absence of that strategy's hardcounter (CVs who can hammer down any ship foolish enough to sit still) that promotes that particular style of gameplay.

I typically get several for each gaming session. If I had to give an average, 2 fail divisions out of 10 games for me sounds about right.

Pajosaurus called me out when I was in a division with DJ_Die and Ozymandias. Didn't even look at the names as I usually do, otherwise I would've recognized that name, sorry bud. Game itself didn't go too well for us. We had a 4:2 DD advantage on Domination mode, but our team spazzed out and just started dying all of a sudden and even my Nagato can't tank multiple cruisers and battleships taking shots at me. Pajosaurus in his Mahan teared it up though! Well done, you got a compliment for that (also, nepotism). The hilarious thing is, the previous match, the situation was reversed, we had a 2:4 DD disadvantage, Domination mode, same map, bu the enemy team just plain bent over and got wrecked so hard we didn't even lose a single ship.

Not sure how the penetration calculations are done, but I think the game already does the math for each protective layer. You can for example get a normal penetration even in a citadel hitbox, provided you got through the initial armour but didn't penetrate the citadel protection. At least that's how it looks like ingame to me. The bigger problem that I'd see would be if say a gunboat DD is stalling the enemy. Naturally he won't tank much damage, but with evasive manouvering he will evade a lot of potential damage and he's doing no less a job at slowing down the enemy than a cruiser or BB that are actually taking hits.

That's why I'd give the US a damage focus with dive bombers, which whilst still doing good damage plus fires, are not as potent as a torpedo bomber strike. So even when pushing through AA, they shouldn't be able to deal too much damage. And like I said, only a rough example. Alternatively I wouldn't mind reducing the squadron aircraft counts to tweak the total AA and damage potential per squadron so it's not amplified too much by individual aircraft stats. As always, I'm a CV newbie and I'm mostly throwing ideas around that I think might make for a better inter-CV balance without the imho boring air superiourity loadouts.

I'd think around the following (rough example): -US squadrons maintain six aircraft and IJN maintain four aircraft per squadron. US typically gets higher reserve/hanger capacity, whereas IJN airplanes fly faster. -Barrage ability damage output gets reduced. No more potential to wipe out squadrons from the sky in an instant. Provides increased alpha damage and a well executed strafe can kill two aircraft, making it useful prior to fighter duels or if you need to kill some bombers really quick (though chances are you can't make a perfect Barrage in such a situation, so a single quick aircraft kill is more likely for an imperfect barrage). -All fighers gain the ability to strafe ships and rattle the ships AA gunners. Using this will expend all remaining ammunition on the fighter squadron, but the ships' AA fire against other aircraft will be reduced for as long as the strafe is going on (if fighter(s) are shot down, disengage or ran out of ammunition, the debuff no longer applies). Doing so will allow planes to power through stronger AA defenses* with fewer losses (drop accuracy debuff still aplies if Defensive AA Fire was triggered by enemy ships), but is also likely to cost you the strafing fighter squadron(s). This is an idea specifically to make balanced loadouts distinctively useful in strike roles compared to the strike loadout's superiour maximum damage potential. -Fighters can disengage from other fighter squadrons. Typically more useful for the lower strength IJN fighters to temporarily lock down an intercepting/escorting US fighter squadron and attempt to retreat (IJN aircraft are faster, but will take fire for a small time during the retreat and not cause any damage in return). In a straight up duel US fighters are still superiour. Can also be used to disrupt a fighter strafe on one of your ships without having to fight it out to the end, or have the enemy fighter squadron attempt a retreat upon realization that his plan was foiled. -US Divebombers get smaller bomb dispersion and a more even drop pattern within the dispersion ellipse (easier to hit smaller ships and more reliable and consitent hits). For low tier CV : US gets 1/1/2 IJN gets 1/2/1 For mid tier CVs: US gets 2/1/2 with option to go 1/1/3 IJN gets 2/2/2 with option to go 1/3/2 For high tier CVs: US gets 2/2/3 with option to go 1/2/4 IJN gets 2/3/3 with option to go 1/4/3 National traits would be: -US CVs are better at striking smaller, more manouverable ships (DDs and CL/CAs) and their increased aircraft count per squadron means they can bruteforce their attacks through opposing AA better without losing too much damage potential. The increased reserve/hangar capacity also means they can take more losses doing so without instantly flying with low-strenght squadrons. -IJN Cvs have higher maximum damage output and are thus more capable at striking large ships (BBs and less manouverable CAs) and their typically higher strike squadron count also allows the player to increase strike accuracy with crossdrops or partition his damage potential amongst more targets simultanously if he so choses, but with less aircraft per squadron means they can't bruteforce a strike through concentrated AA as good as the US might and lower reserve/hangar capacity also means they can't sustain too many losses attempting such. Feel free to discuss and/or shoot down any ideas of mine. * No, this is not meant to render ship based AA ineffective. A cruiser with strong AA (or weak AA buffed by using Defensive AA Fire) will still kill aircraft and if focused, the strafing fighters will get destroyed quickly, only giving a brief window of opportunity for air strikes. To put it into perspective, you're not supposed to be able to use this on a Des Moines with AA setup and just circle your aircraft over it with impunity. Exactly values would be a thing of long and careful testing/balancing.

Tanking damage. More often than not some players must take one for the team and stall a numerically superiour enemy. And waggling your aft so you don't get blown to kingdom come instantly isn't exactly improving your damage output even with lots of potential targets, yet staying alive and (hopefully) slowing down an enemy push to either allow your team to counterpush or come back and defend is an invaluable help for your team that isn't rewarded with XP or credits at all. Giving players some rewards for successfully tanking damage would be a nice compensation for essentially staying and slowly getting murdered just so the rest of the team may stand a chance at winning.

Was hör ich nicht? Gerade bin ich wieder auf 'nem Diablo Swing Orchestra Trip: 10/10 Avantgarde Metal

First of, my CV experience is extremely limited so my opinion is mostly based on observing other CVs in games and conjecture based on what I can see in port/techtree. If anything of what I say simply doesn#t translate in practice, please tell so I can reformulate, thank you! That said, I agree unconditionally. Air superiourity loadouts basically just remove the CVs from the game with the only exception being high tier CVs that get enough squadrons on the side to do damage in a somewhat noticable fashion. The US CV lines is effected by this the most. Strike loadouts don't come with any fighters at all, whereas the IJN counterpart always gets at least one fighter squadron to harass or independently scout with. Air superiourity loadouts on the other hand come with one or two dive bomber squadrons at most and as such can't do much in the way of damage. So when it comes to dealing damage, between the few attack craft (and the possibility of an IJN squadron harassing one of those two during strikes), AS loadouts perform pityable. This is also reflected in the match rewards which is currently geared mostly towards dealing damage. On the recieving hand, facing an AS loadout in a Strike loadout is severely limiting if not outright denying the Strike CVs capacity to have an effect on the game (provided the AS CV player knows what he's doing and is predicting strike vectors correctly to intercept). The result is two CVs are locked in an effective stalemate and incapable of effecting the battle by way of doing damage. Basically two less players for each team, nevermind it being a frustrating match for the strike CV and a rather boring game for the AS CV, with both ending up with very little rewards. Imho Air superiourity loadouts should be removed and all CVs should get a more balanced loadout in terms of fighters. There is still plenty enough points to balance and differentiate the CV lines. US CV lines have fewer sqadrons with more aircraft, making the squadrons more durable and packing more punch, whereas IJN CV have more squadrons with fewer aircraft, making them less durable but allowing the CV player to partition his damage output more easily. US CVs can bruteforce a strike better, but IJN Cvs can exploit better micromanagement to improve their hitrates, etc. pp.. Other changes that could be made is to improve the accuracy (less RNG) for US divebombers, so they are better at striking smaller targets like DDs and CAs (the latter which synergizes with their increased durability to bruteforce through a CA's AA to deliver the strike), giving them a design focus on being better at dealing with those ship classes compared to the better BB strike capability for IJN CVs. That's my .02$ on the topic.

Not sure if intended, but the amount of pun layers to that sentence is amazing. If intended, hats off to you. if not, you should totally say it was intended anyway.

I would wish so (then again not necessarily, I DID have fun with the Hosho after all) But nah, I was sitting on a bit over 20k ship XP and that one game got me the remaining XP I needed to unlock the Zuiho.

A very articulate little fellow went to great lenght in espounding my supposed skill for daring to wreck his team in my Hosho (naturally he was in a BB, a premium one even, good ole' Ishizuchini): Apparently High Caliber and Kraken means I'm a no skill [insert derogatory term for homosexuals, starts with "f" and ends with "aggot"] noob and I should play RTS instead of abusing click and win CVs against poor BBs, me dirty sealclubber. The funny stuff is: -CVs are my least played class by far (so no abusing). -I only just got enough XP to unlock the Zuiho from that match (so no sealclubbing). -I did in fact play a lot of RTS back in the days. -Ishizuchi.

Dafuq? Is that recent or an old screenshot from back when MM was ... let's say clunkier? Because afaik stuff like this isn't supposed to happen at all.

Fate/Stay Night ist nicht sooo schlecht, aber definitiv nicht so gut wie die anderen beiden. Wäre aber ein bischen viel die gleich komplett zu überspringen weil man einiges and Informationen nur sehr spärlich in Fate/Zero kriegt. Das ganze Konzept vom Holy Grail War wird in Fate/Zero nur sehr kurz erklärt, da macht Fate/Stay Night einen wesentlichen besseren Job. Ausserdem finde ich misst man an diversen Aha!-Momenten wenn man gleich mit Fate/Zero anfängt. Also ja, der 2006 Anime ist kein Meisterwerk, aber meiner mainung nach sollte man zumindest für ein paar Folgen reinschnuppern. Selbst wenn man dan aufhört und gleich mit Fate/Zero anfängt hat man dann zumindest das Gröbste über die Story erklärt bekommen. Und es ist wirklich egal wie gut man den 2006 Anime findet, aber die Ufotable Produktionen sind ein absoluter MUSS. Fate/Zero ist ein Meisterwerk and Fate/Stay Night: UBW kann selbst mit manchmal nervigen Hauptcharakter in allen anderen Belangen voll überzeugen. Bin schon gespannt auf die Heaven's Feel Route Adaption. Kotomine <3

Day is starting well, first game today:

Fate/Stay Night (2006 Series von DEEN) Fate/Zero (2011 Serie von Ufotable) Fate/Stay Night: Unlimited Blade Works (2015 Serie von Ufotable) Ich sollte vielleicht anmerken dass Fate/Stay Night 2006 auf der 'Fate' Route der Visual Novel basiert ist (gibt auch noch die 'Unlimited Blade Works' und 'Heaven's Feel'), welche mit Abstand die idealisierteste ist wenn es um Story Elemente geht. Kann also ein bischen fad wirken wenn's nicht gerade nach deinem Geschmack ist. In dem Fall, einfach durchpowern, weil es ein exzellenter Startpunkt ist um das Nasuverse (sprich die vom Author erschaffene Welt in der seine Werke spielen) und die Details zu der Magie, etc. kennenzulernen. Fate/Zero ist ein Prequel zu der Fate/Stay Night Visual Novel (also nicht nur zu der 2006 Serie, sondern dem ganzem Ding) und handelt vom 4ten Ritual. Hier werden einige bekannte Charaktere benutzt, ihre Motivationen gezeigt, etc. pp.. Ausserdem ist es bei weitem die beste Darstelling des Ritual Konzepts eines echten Battle Royal zwischen (meistens) erfahrenen Magiern (Fate/Stay Night sind ja hauptsächlich Teenager). Geniale Charakterisierungen, geniale Optik, geniale Musik und geniale Choreographie. 10/10 Anime! Fate/Stay Night: Unlimited Blade Works spielt in dem selben Kontext wie die 2006 Serie Fate/Stay Night, aber adaptiert die 'Unlimted Blade Works' Route (duh). Was 2006 also mit Fokus auf Saber und einem Idealistischem Shiro ist, ist in 'UBW' eher auf Archer, Rin Tohsaka und der Dekonstruktion von Shiro's Idealismus fokussiert (obgleich sich Ufotable nicht sparen konnte ein bischen mehr Saber reinzudrücken, da Fanliebling der japanischen Gemeinde). Vom selben Studio wie Fate/Zero und mit Geld geradezu überschüttet das gerne mit "Unlimited Budget Works" gescherzelt wird bietet auch Fate/Stay Night: UBW 10/10 Optik, Musik, Choreographie. Ausserdem ist die UBW Route generell als die stärkste was Sachen Story and Charakterisierung angeht.

I was thinking along the lines of 1x GNB camouflage for each diamond earned by the individual player, but I'd take 12.000.000x GNB camouflages too

Gotta sacrifice more virgin videogame developers. Bonus points if sacrificed by burning with HE spam.

Just change the 10 GNB camouflages for at least one diamond to 1 GNB camouflage for each earned diamond and we're golden

82k damage done, two kills in KamiKaze R ... WITHOUT HUD/UI THE ENTIRE GAME!!! Not even an aiming reticule when in aim zoom

'One-Punch Man' 'Psycho-Pass' (Science-Fiction, aber kein Mecha-Anime, keine gigantischen Robotor die sich zusammenschlagen. Technisch gesehen ein Thriller, aber mit genügend Aktion Einlagen und ein paar netter Fäustchen aufs Äugchen für die Martial-Arts Fans! Ausserdem ein Meisterwerk der Anime Welt, mit auf der Liste mit 'Ghost in the Shell' als Must-See!!!) 'Fate/Stay Night' + 'Fate/Zero' + 'Fate/Stay Night: Unlimited Blade Works' (Am besten in genannter Reihenfolge) 'Dimension W' 'Kurozuka' (Ähnlich zu 'Ergo Proxy', aber wesentlich mehr Aktion, könnte also doch gefallen) 'Seirei no Moribito' (Gestrichen weils doch eher eine "coming of age" Geschichte ist und damit icht genau in dein Beuteschema passt. Hat allerdings exzellente Kampfscenen zwischendurch und ist generall ein guter Anime, kann also trotzdem gefallen wenn du den Rest schon gesehen hast) 'Samurai Champloo' Und als Film: 'Sword of the Stranger' (Einer der besten Samurai Aktion Filme den ich bisher gesehen hab und damit meine ich nicht nur Anime). Was auch gerade am laufen ist wäre 'Koutetsujou no Kabaneri'. Hab ich noch nicht empfohlen weils gerade am laufen ist aber bis jetzt einer der besseren Serien. Um's einfach zu beschreiben: 'Attack on Titan' mit Zombies anstelle von Riesen and das Ganze in einem feudalen Steampunk Japan. Wird der Show nicht komplett gerecht, ist aber eine solide Vergleichsbasis, wenn du also 'Attack onTitan' magst kannst du hier nicht viel falsch machen! Und damit hast du wieder was zu gucken ... und weil ich zu wach bin um zu schlafen (*grmml* Nachtschicht Arbeit) geh ich die Extrameile und sags mit Opening Songs:

Now, how about a little of that attitude in this game instead of the daily MM treads? What you fail to mention is that: A.) The ships Yi had were Panokseon types, whereas the japanese ships where Atakebune and Sekibune types. To explain the differences: Panokseon had very shallow draft and handled excellently in shallow waters whereas Atakebune and Sekibune had deeper drafts, which makes them considerably less manouvreable in shallow or narrow waters (think turning circles), important for point B. Panokseon types are also similar to turtle ships, important for point C. Last but not least, Korean shipbuilding was waaaaaaaaay superiour to japanese shipbuilding and could take a beating, whereas japanese ships couldn't! B.) Yi had terrain advantage forcing the japanese to attack him in shallow straits. As mentioned above, japanese ships handle terribly in such terrain. Likewise, their numbers advantage means little in confined spaces where numerical advantage can not be exploited by attacking on a broad front, effectively limited the number of ships he had to fight at any given time drastically! C.) Japanese naval combat was largely based on boarding ships. Panokseon ships have multiple decks and stand very high out of the water, which makes the traditional boarding tactics of the japanese nearly ineffectual. D.) A Panokseon could carry up to 26 cannons and the Koreans were well experienced in using naval gunnery as standard combat doctrine. A japanese Atakebune could only carry about 4 cannons, a Sekibune only a single cannon and the japanese were not very experienced in using gunnery tactics (which is also a reason why the japanese relied heavily on boarding tactics). E.) The Korean navy had a loooooooong history of combating japanese pirates and knew how to counter traditional japanese naval tactics, plus they were excellent sailors. By contrast the japanese navy was inexperienced in large scale naval warfare. To put this into WoWS terms: Yi had thirteen Yamatos that handled like DDs in the shallow waters crewed by 19 point captains and Todo had ~130 Mikasas with novice captains lemming training themselves through the channel in Two Brothers trying to get into secondary gun range. Sounds incredibly unfair, right? For the japanese that is ...

The biggest change they NEEDS to come asap is that the matchmaker has to stop thinking that a higher tier cruiser is a good compensation for not having a higher tier BB. Yes, yes, there's division involved. No, I still haven't seen comprehensive proof that the matchmaker actually does treat divisions as a higher "weight" (afaik such a "weight" system is not used in WoWS) and irregardless of that I've seen the same and even worse matchmaking without divisions, so it still serves as example! Matchmaking shouldn't be retarded enough to think that a higher tier ship is a reasonable compensation for the enemy team having higher tier ships who happen to be aforementioned ships' hardcounter. Having an additional toptier cruiser and two more one tier higher than the enemies' is NOT good matchmaking when the enemy gets more AND higher tier battleships (which, just in case I have to spell it out for someone from WG reading this (yeah, pffft), eat cruisers for lunch!). The only reason we won this game is because the enemy battleships all camped in their base and the remainder of their team lemming trained straight into our guns (and it's a FACT that matchmaking doesn't account for player skill, so we just as easily could've faced competent battleship players and would've been roflstomped!).

Herp-a-derp, habe 'Dimension W' total vergessen ... ich schau echt zuviel wenn ich schon eine Serie von Anfang des Jahres nicht mehr im Kopf habe