AnotherDuck

Considering how that year of the CV went, I want a year of the BB now.

Not really, no. It's not like reverting a change will make things magically better. The game isn't the same as it was back then, so changing it to how it was then doesn't make sense. You have to look at the current game, not the glorious past. And that's also ignoring that things were changed for a reason. Tell me which tiers the lowest detectability ship is not an IJN DD. Also, considering how much you whine about the torpedoes being crap, how are torpedoes the main thing IJN DDs are good at? You're arguing against your own arguments. If there's anything that isn't their main characteristic anymore, it's the torpedoes. It's not a small buff. And the situation is entirely dependent on your own play. You're the one in charge of it, so you can put yourself into that situation. It's not like you have to be particularly lucky. On the other hand, considering your whining about all the hydro, buffing torpedo stealth is situational for those rare (in your opinion) situations where there's no hydro. You're not making any sense. You used a specific situation (while at the same time whining about me doing that exact thing) where the Khaba has the absolute best advantage it can get, so I used a situation where you can just get out of it. If you get to make up situations to suit your needs, I get to make up my own. Capiche? The Engine Boost Modification 1 is not unique to Khabarovsk. It's available for all DDs from tier 6. As such it doesn't make sense that you use that in an argument that only the one DD you argue for has it. It's like saying you can easily sink a Conqueror if she doesn't use her heal. It's completely and utterly irrelevant. Yes, you can make fairly good guesses at incoming torpedoes. I have a much higher torpedo hit change if I'm not spotted. This is fairly consistent throughout the game (although lower at sealclub tiers). Beg all you want. I don't believe you. Contrary to popular belief, most cruisers are not second-line torping potatoes. Most of them do not, in fact, torp nearly as much as DDs do, especially if we're talking about stealthy IJN DDs. Are you having trouble reading? I clearly, multiple times now, said that you said, "they're not worth it". Those were the exact words I used. Why do you keep trying to imply I said something else? Why don't you do that? You don't seem to have a good grasp of what I'm saying anyway, considering that yes, you're falsely claiming that.

Key point: "when something comes". You're not getting to anything with that speed. You have to wait until the enemies get to you. Anyway, as people say, the Germans work well overall. The low and mid tiers aren't bad either. What's more important is that you learn how to play the respective ships to their strength. For instance, while Bismarck has great secondaries, they're not effective straight forward or backwards. They've got roughly the same angles as your main guns, so keep that in mind. You can try out to see what at angle they go off on (and you are going to notice that). Just make sure you're not showing too much broadside, especially when you know enemy BBs have reloaded. That's the key to surviving. Also learn where to aim. Don't hit the belt unless you've got a relatively flat angle. Better go for the more reliable penetrations in the bow, or aim for the guns to reduce enemy firepower. A secondary build and an AA build are very similar, with only a few differences. Therefore you should pick everything that gives plusses to both of those. For the more specialised stuff, you can choose either, or go for survival with that stuff instead. Still, remember that your main guns are your main guns for a reason. Your secondaries, even when fully secondary specced, will do less damage. But you can still increase that damage decently with a secondary specced ship. It's up to you which path to take (but personally, secondaries are just so much fun). Captain skills are honestly not as important exactly what you pick, as long as you pick something that benefits your style. But to mention some of the skills: Priority Target: Good, solid skill. Gives information about enemies that consider you a threat and potentially incoming torpedoes. Preventive Maintenance: It would be good if it affected secondaries. It doesn't, so it's not worth it. High Alert: Not that useful since you can get by with careful DCP management, but not terrible. Problem is that there are more useful T2 skills. Jack of All Trades: Slightly better than HA, since the overall bonus is better, but still not great. Expert Marksman: Personal preference. Test your ship first. Do you think you need faster turning turrets? Pick it. Can you manage without? Don't. I actually have it on Bismarck, despite already very good turret traverse (for a BB), just because it is noticeable in brawling (but not much elsewhere). Adrenaline Rush: Mandatory. One of the best skills of all. 10% more total firepower at 50% health. Basics of Survivabilty: Not bad, and sort of does the same job as High Alert but better. Since you'll often let single (and sometimes double) fires burn, you'll take 15% less damage from those. Solid choice for surviviability. Survivability Expert: If you want to troll people into thinking you're a potato. Only if. Basic Firing Training: Very good for a brawler. Better secondaries and better AA. German BBs benefit from both. Superintendent: One more heal, one more sonar (for those that have it). Planes you have enough of. Not worth it if you often die before using all consumables. Worth it if you do survive that long. Vigilance: Personal preference. If you don't have sonar, not a bad choice for a brawler. You can leave this one be until you know how much trouble you have with torpedoes. Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament: The fun skill. If you want to snipe with your secondaries, pick it. Does wonder for secondary DPS. Fire Prevention: Only YOU can prevent ship fires! Solid skill, especially if you're often on fire. One of the best skills for survivability. Advanced Firing Training: BFT version two. Concealment Expert: While a good skill, it's less useful for a brawler (you're constantly detected anyway), and you're going to have a lot of skills you want to spend points on anyway. I wouldn't recommend it, but in return, you need to make sure you have a good exit strategy. Make use of islands to get out of line of fire since you can't rely on stealth. Also use islands to get into brawling range. You can pretty much pick and choose from what you want. It all depends on what you're good at, what you need help with, and what synergises with your personal playstyle. Players brawl in different ways, and have different problems with it. Pick what suits you; that's the most important part.

Well, I don't think anyone would argue that buffing the 20 km torps could be done without making them OP. However, I don't think that kind of range is healthy for the game. That encourages camping. I mean, as long as you're on the same quadrant of the map you can torp anyone, regardless of how passive you play. I don't think it would. I'm also not sure how a buff would lead to an incredible amount of work all the time either. Most of the previous ships in the line are stealth torpedo ships. Shima's one of few that's lacking in the stealth aspect, so changing from stealthy ships to one that can bare outspot anything but the cruiser-like DD makes for a very awkward relearning period for IJN DD players. This buff brings it in line with the line. It's far better to have similar ships in the same line, and not outliers. You don't need to tell me about what a Shimakaze faces in matches. As I said, I own one, and I've played over 200 games in it. I know what to expect. I also know how much stealth matters, and how much you cannot do (well, safely) that you can do in Kagero and Yuugumo, just because they're so much stealthier. That's one tool in the IJN DD toolbox that's simply not there anymore. My experience is that stealth definitely matters. My point was that you were using a "what if" scenario to tilt everything in your favour, and I countered by one of my own. And then you told me to not do the exact same thing you did. If you're claiming I'm not understanding what you say, I'm claiming you don't understand what you say either, because you contradict yourself. Are you talking about Engine Boost Modification 1 that gives a longer active time on the speed boost? You react much faster to something you're prepared for than to something you have no idea is coming. Cruiser torps aren't used nearly as much. They're far more often used in situations where you're more certain to hit. Of course they're going to have a better hit ratio. It's not a good comparison. I never said you said they're terrible. I said you said they're not worth it. Are you having trouble reading that, or are you just making things up to make your argument seem legitimate? I know exactly what it means. You falsely claimed I'm trying to balance (or argue for it, at least) Shima for unicums rather than for most players. I explained that by buffing Shimakaze's stealth you're making it easier for players like myself and for average players, and not just unicums. If you claim I'm arguing only for unicums, you're implicitly saying that average players are unicums. Unless you're simply not responding to what I say.

TRB for Kitakami, then?

But it is. Granted, you need TA for the stock torpedoes to work decently, but most people think those torps should just be outiright removed anyway. I don't have a problem with that. That's assuming you want back the exact same thing it used to have, rather than trying to redesign it for the current meta. I think the latter is the more sensible approach. Wait, it's a CV filled meta? At T10? Better stealth helps you take less damage, since you're not always going to be detected by hydro and radar. So if you're arguing about the F3s, it's an entirely appropriate buff. I would argue that the British CL line isn't balanced for the average player. However, getting advantage from stealth is something an average player can get. The type of player who won't get an advantage is the sniper. An average player is just as likely to be aggressive, and there the buff shines. Oh, I understand what you're saying. Doesn't mean I agree with what you're trying to argue, or that I think it's relevant. So that's not saying the enemy will just counter you regardless of what you do? "If you try to cap, the enemy will counter you." That means you can't cap. That's being useless. Also, since I didn't mention it before, but if a DD is spotted by something unspotted, that's among the worst things that can happen. It usually means that DD will take a lot of incoming fire, and likely sink. That's what concealment advantage gives you. First strike, from all of your awake allies. And if you're spotted you can still smoke away in most cases. This is a good buff and I explained it above. If you say Khabas can use islands as covers, so can you. Khaba is not good at shooting over islands, so you're safe there. And if you're surprised by a Khaba, what other DD would survive? You're talking about a very specific, and quite frankly rare, situation that's pretty much the worst case scenario. That's not something you can use as a typical example for a balance argument. It would be nice if you looked at the overall situations not just one well chosen one to use it as your point. If you're going to argue speed, why are you using speedboost for one ship but not the other? I mean, it really would be nice if you looked at the overall situations not just one well chosen one to use it as your point. You're talking about head-on collision courses, which is just, again, the worst case scenario. It's not a typical example. It's far more typical to be aware of the rough or exact position of the Khaba (because those guns are usually firing constantly) so you can take preemtive actions to counter it. It's far more typical to skirt the outside edge of detection in the same heading as the ship you're the closest to. Yes. If you're not spotted, it's harder for the enemy to know where the torpedoes are coming from and take evasive actions. It's not rocket science. You said they're not worth it. Are you saying I'm a unicum? Or as I explained above, that the average player is a unicum?

I'd prefer a KanColle collab, since those designs are far more sensible overall. And there are tons of small historical details to them as well. Azure Lane does have a few good ones, though. If you exclude the lolis. Well, at least it's not Warship Girls. Their Tashkent isn't even blue...

Umikaze needs a tier buff. Since back when they added the +/-1 tier division restriction and moved T3 cruisers away from T5 battles, I've not been able to farm damage on T5 ships. That needs to be fixed. I agree that T7 DDs need a buff since they're in that awkward place of increasing detectability, but T8 has the concealment module. Maybe they should steal it from P2W Belfast.

So if the F3s is 1/3 of Shima because it's one of three choices, and I pick the F3s, then 100% of my ship is torpedoes. Good math, there. They're supposed to be stealthy. This is a stealth upgrade. I fail to see the point. Not that I wouldn't like to see a torpedo buff, but that doesn't mean concealment is a very good aspect to buff. Why would I mention DWT when I'm talking about hydro? Is there some hidden (pun intended) aspect about them that makes them immune to hydro? Why am I losing life when I'm firing torpedoes while no one can see me? I've played over 200 games in Shimakaze. I know what T10 looks like from that perspective. I've also argued that radars should be removed from the game, but that's a different topic. Why look whining up in a dictionary when I can read your post? FYI, they have 16 km range with TA. Not that it really matters, since the range difference there is mostly academic. But while I've never used the 20 km torps in Shimakaze, I have used them in the old T9 Kagero, so since you're so interested in my performance, look that up. I'm not the best player, but I've got decent stats with those. They're not really below my average, accounting for how old the ship is and how I've improved since. So it doesn't matter if you damage ships, because they can heal it back. Now, why is this a problem specific to Shimakaze? Why does Shimakaze have so much problem with it compared to all other ships that you think it's a good argument in this discussion? So you're saying that at the moment, I can't cap with Shimakaze? I mean, if I can't do anything with the buff, I most certainly can't do it without it, right? Is that what you're saying? That Shimakaze is absolutely useless and can't accomplish anything currently? Because it sure sounds like it. Or is it just whining with exaggerations? I'm arguing that Shimakaze needs a buff at the moment, and this is a good buff. If it's enough remains to be seen, but that needs testing. If you aren't braindead, you're not getting rushed by a Khaba. You have several kilometres to turn away when it's spotted. Even a full stealth-build Khaba has over 2 km worse detection, but those are rare, especially among players who know how to play the ship. So if you're getting rushed by a Khaba, you're on a flank without allies, you lack map awareness to know there's a Khaba nearby, and you fail to react to it. Meaning it's entirely your misplay that gets you killed, not the Shima's lack of speed. Other DDs have it a little easier to surprise a Shima. But again, that requires a lack of map awareness on your part. It's not the enemy that has to be braindead for that to not happen. It's the Shima player who has to make a mistake. Are you running Concealment Expert? If 500 m doesn't matter, you should spend those four points somewhere where they matter. Are you running the Concealment System Modification? You must take a lot of fire, since the dispersion buff is the only useful thing there. You know what else helps you surprise other DDs? Stealth. If the enemies can see you, you can't really expect to surprise them with a torpedo attack. Doesn't matter if you have DWT stealth on the torpedoes. They see you, so if they have any brain at all, they expect you to torp them. Good luck surprising them then. If they can't see you, you have a much greater chance of surprising them. Add your speed to that, and you can relocate much faster and be where you need to be. With the buff, you stand a much greater chance of doing so without the enemies spotting you. Some people do well with the F3s. Most of those have really fun playing the ship. It's completely worth it for those players. Just because you're not one of them doesn't mean you get to tell them what they're doing isn't worth it. Or do you have enough experience so you know exactly how worthless they are?

So why are you playing IJN DDs? Or do you think that Shimakaze should, like Akizuki, play completely differently from all the other ships in the line? Playing on the edge of detection is what the vast majority if the IJN DDs do, and what they do very well in. Why should Shimakaze be an exception?

I seem to recall something WG said that it's not actually a torpedo line and a gunboat line, but that's what people keep calling them. I forget exactly what they called them, though. One's faster, and the other is stealthier, Akizuki aside, which doesn't fit anything at all, since other than Tachibana it's the only real gunboat. Shiratsuyu isn't a gunboat, for one. It's a stealth torpedo boat. So, removing TRB would hurt Shira a lot. That's not an option without a significant buff. That line is really what should lead to the higher tiers, since the gameplay is a lot more similar. You can use concealment. I use it all the time in Yuugumo, and Shima's better at it because of the speed. You can easily go in, drop torps, and get out.

You mention hydro and then you talk about torpedo concealment? With hydro, the F3s are far better than anything else. They're about the only torpedoes that can hit despite hydro. Or the mod.3's with TA. You're right, T10 doesn't have a million radar ships. If you're going to argue, don't bring up those ridiculiously stupid exaggerations. That's just whining. Sure, if you use the 20 km torps without TA. But even those with TA you can do well with. Or either of the other torps, with or without TA. Also, torpedo damage is citadel damage. Most of it you can't heal. Flooding you can heal, but if you manage to get that to stick, you're probably going to sink the ship, unless it's Conqueror with a heal ready. No one's arguing that Shimakaze is balanced. Well, almost. But that's why a buff like this is welcome. It means Shima will be really good at something. Gearing could use a torpedo nerf. Too strong of a gunboat with those torps. However, you also forgot about Shima's speed, which is better than all but the Russians, and then only barely worse than Grozovoi. And while you tried to explain away the damage before, that still matters, since you need fewer hits for the same damage. I mean, of course Shima's worse than Gearing when you only mention one side of the argument. 500 m means nothing if you always snipe with the torpedoes and never get into the ranges where it matters. If that's how you play, it explains a lot about your opinions. QFT. Great concealment and great speed is a great combination.

"Most played" doesn't mean "well-balanced". It's been both nerfed and powercreeped several times. Ship stealth is very important for torpedo stealth. If your opponents don't know where you are, they don't know where to expect torpedoes from. That's in itself more important than the torpedoes techncial detectability. Of course, if you can use it. Reducing ship detectability benefits players who can take advantage of that, while reducing torpedo detectability benefits torpedo soup players. It's one I've suggested previously, but somewhat lesser (100-200 m lower max detectability). That's roughly what I think would be enough, thanks to the very decent speed, so I'm certainly happy about this buff. That sounds more reasonable. The former figure was simply huge. I only used those with the TA skill, back with the old T9 Kagero. At 16 km you still have more than you really need (not that I didn't get a fair few hits at 15 km range), and the speed is at least not completely garbage.

If you get information about which type is detecting you, then you can figure out how close the enemy is. If it's hydro, it's probably just on the other side of a nearby island. If it's radar, it could be anywhere in the area, but you can probably get an idea based on what the area looks like. Still, the point was that denying information because someone misplays is not an argument. There may be other reasons to not have the information, but because someone misplays isn't one of them. Some players don't know when they're spotted even with the icon. By your logic we shouldn't have any icon for that. Additionally, if you know what it is that spots you, you can usually figure out which ship is spotting you. If you're hard spotted, it's a sneaky DD. If it's hydro, it's probably a German ship. If it's radar, you should already know what radar ships are in the game, so you can approximate where it is and probably which one. Once you've figured that out, you're better equipped for how to deal with the threat. "Staying away" isn't always the option. If that's what you're supposed to learn, it just encourages camping. Learning how to deal with problems without hightailing out of there is better. Sure, sometimes you should stay away, but not always. If you always do that, you learn how to camp. Well, it's either that or multiple icons, each with their unique position on the screen. Either works. Sometimes I go to bait radar or hydro just to find out if someone is there. Sometimes you want to go deep in so you can flush out enemy ships. It should not always be accidental. And again, that's not a reason to not have it. If anything I think this game needs to be more forgiving of mistakes (not in all areas), especially when it comes to playing aggressively. Punishing mistakes harsher mostly just leads to more camping. Having less information doesn't prepare you better for being prepared in advance anyway. It just scares you away from action.

You never have any guarantee you won't be deleted once you back off from island cover. What you do know is roughly how long time you have and how far you have to move to get out of detection. Those are always vital bits of information. That's not the same argument. Being spotted isn't (necessarily) misplaying. The argument was that misplaying is a reason to keep information from the player. If they misplay that's a better reason to give them more information so they have a better ground for learning how to avoid it the next time. "Stay away," isn't nearly as helpful as "stay away from hydro". The more information you have about what causes you problems, the better equipped you are at learning how to deal with it. I also like rewarding game knowledge. Let's remove situational awareness completely. That's just free information. Same goes for RL and IFA. Suicidal or yoloing; I don't differ the two. Still, it's the same thing, bad players are not a reason to keep information away from them. Other hazards isn't a reason either. Besides, you do get warnings from torpedoes, once they're in spotting range. This I disagree with. Being spotted by radar or hydro isn't the problem. It's learning how to deal with it when it happens. Sometimes it's accidental, and sometimes it's deliberate. Showing whether it's radar or hydro is more information, but hiding information just because you have other information just feels wrong. You know you're detected by hydro, and then you get hardspotted, so suddenly you don't get to know if you're still spotted by hydro. I find that contrary to good game design.

For me the difference is only about 2% hitrate, which I consider comparable. And my shotgun Fuso has a better hitrate than your sniper Nagato, so there's that.

Honestly, a potato in a battleship is probably better than a potato in a cruiser. The cruiser will die quickly and not accomplish much, while a battleship will at least survive a reasonable amount of time and hopefully accomplish at least something. Personally, I'd say Fuso is my to-go ship for operations. Just overall solid with a ton of guns with a good calibre that doesn't overpen everything but can still nuke broadside battleships. And the accuracy isn't nearly as bad as people claim. It's easily comparable to Nagato, which people claim is far more accurate, and that's before you take into account more guns with faster reload.

Also the best design. Bike girl is close enough on topic?

I find BBs much more suited to operations than DDs. A couple of BBs is good in operations. I can do without DDs. If any ship needs a buff for operations, it's DDs. If you play a BB, you don't have to do all those things at the same time. Between shots you have plenty of time to breathe, check the map, grab a cup of coffee, and then sit back down and wait for the reload to finish so you can shoot again.

Knowing what detects you can help. If it's radar, you know the duration isn't going to be as long as if it's hydro (well, it could still be a US radar with upgrade). So if you're behind an island, you can sit there for a little while. If it's hydro, you know you can move away from it and get out of range much easier. If you know you're hardspotted and spotted by radar/hydro, you know you can't smoke away, but if you're only hardspotted, you can hide in smoke. I don't think misplaying is an argument. Why should that mean you're not allowed to have information to get you out of it? And teaching someone to not do things without information by denying them information is backwards. At any rate I don't think we should encourage players to be even more careful than they already are. I'll take a team of yolo way ahead of a team of camp.

In other words, accomplish something, anything, taking into account the time you're alive? But that still measures success rather than what actually goes on with the decisions. In essence, I don't think we should punish players for making a valid decision even if it turns out poorly, unless you can demonstrate that it in absolutely all cases is bad.

I think that if we remove radar from the game, this problem of differentiating radar from sonar would disappear completely! What a fantastic solution! In all seriousness, I want all the information I can get. I don't want one type of information override another type, because they're both relevant.

If you have rules in place to punish people like team damage, you need to have very solid rules that don't include exceptions. As several of us have demonstrated, your suggestions have so many holes in them they'd sink if they were put into the game regardless of how fast you could click that damage control button. I think I've gone to D on North in a BB once. Bismarck, T10, and the enemy had a significant force there. It was a good choice. Anyway, make up whatever you want. It doesn't make you right. You're just grasping at straws. So according to you, there are two positions on the map: In a cap, and in spawn. Since apparently if you're not in the cap, you're in spawn. I'm glad we have your map awareness skills demonstrated so clearly. You were talking about punishments similar to being pink. Not rewards. Try again. Is this the part where I quote Flamu? I probably would, if there aren't radar ships close by. Carefully. I can outspot Fletcher in Yuugumo. RPF would make me less inclined to do so, though, but it depends on what support both sides have. I haven't followed this part of the discussion in too much detail, so I don't know what you're claiming, but yeah, it's an accident, and it's the responsibility of the yellow ship.

I don't buy "with all due respect" if followed up with a statement like that.

With fighters you mean the floatplane fighters that cruisers and battleships have? Those could do with a range upgrade. That's one benefit of the spotter planes, since those fly farther out.