AnotherDuck

I don't remember any audible warnings from DW torps in a DD.

If you think camping in the back is only positive, then I've got nothing else to say. Clearly. Quotation marks there is just grammatically appropriate. It doesn't have the meaning you think it has.

I dunno. Something reasonable for once? It's your problem, especially if your limit is those suggestions. Which by the way is false, since I didn't claim CVs are OP and should be nerfed. Yet another example of you making things up for the sake of having something to say. It's getting repetitive.

So you quote what I say which says something other than what you claimed I said and then you try to angle it into something like it doesn't matter what you say so you're "right"? You're still wrong. Doesn't take a genius to figure out. I'd rather have players who play tactically unsound than camping in a game where that's more effective. It's like if it's a fighting game, you prefer interesting and varying tactics than spamming the same cheesy move over and over. It's more effective, but it makes the gameplay worse. You're encouraging spamming cheesy moves, so it would be better if you just stop with that.

Quotes or lies.

But it has nothing to do with what I said. Why are you quoting me when you don't respond to it anyway?

Seriously, what's this weird notion about actually reading what you're responding to? I didn't say that CVs cause camping. I said that people encourage camping as a response to CVs. If you say you should keep with your team to avoid CV strikes, then you, you personally, are encouraging camping. That's what I said. Not that CVs cause camping. That's what you made up because you failed to read what you responded to. If you fail to encourage this average player to play in a meaningful and interesting way, you fail to design a good game. This average player is, by definition, the average player who plays the game. Saying players should do something for the game to be good is loading the burden of game design on the players, not the game developers. We, as a community, can affect the playerbase to some extent, but this kind of whining you give an example of isn't the answer.

CVs are either more or less ignorable, or they will kill you. There's rarely anything in between. Sure, there's merit to teamplay. But the effect of everyone saying "teamplay" as a defence to CVs is camping and lemmingtraining. That's what you're encouraging. Anyone who sticks his or her nose out gets deleted. That's not fun and dynamic gameplay. It's boring and static. A few suggestions: Less vulnerability to high-end AA. More vulnerability to low-end AA. Less nuking potential. Faster turnaround for resupplying. Plane counts adjusted if necessary. Fix the damn UI already. But what about dragons? Seriously, have you missed everyone complaining about BBs being overpowered in their ability to nuke any other ship? Every thread about BB AP working as intendedTM against DDs? The lack of cruiser survivability because of BB AP? This thread is for AP bombs. Not BBs AP. Of course you're not going to find as many people complaining about those things. Those aren't the topic of this thread.

CVs are all about the all-or-nothing approach in balance and in how people see them. If you don't do all, people will see nothing, and complain for what they don't see. You have the ship most capable of carrying the team, so if you don't carry the team, people will complain. Including anyone you might not cover 100% of the time even if you do win. While I would say that the people who complain are usually the ones who don't understand the gameplay, 95.3% of players have absolutely no clue about what you're doing or what you should be doing in a CV anyway, so the remaining 4.7% aren't exactly common. And they complain anyway, because they know better than you do and you should obviously know everything they know, including anticipating what they think they will know in the future. Some pointers, though: Grow a thick skin. Sorry to say, but it's mandatory to enjoy playing CVs. Pay attention to and remember everyone who says something positive. Helps with the previous point. Listen to the people who give you reasonable advice. The hard part is filtering all the crap. Need to frequently change filters. Use the chat if you have time to explain what you're doing, what you're planning, and if you've got plenty of time, explain what you've done. Don't complain about being bottom tier, or MM. It never helps for anyone in any class, but it drags the team down especially with CVs. If your DDs try to cap, help them out. They're usually the ones with the worst AA and the most need of AA support from planes. BBs more often have CAs close by. As a DD player, I do not appreciate it when the CV tries to strike in a way that makes the enemy dodge my incoming DD torps. Most good CV players know how to crossdrop. Use the DD torps to cross with your plane torps, and remember that DD torps are more powerful. Actually, if you have an ally you think the enemy CV is going to strike with reasonably certainty, that's a good time to have fighters ready to intercept. It's probably not a good idea to dedicate your fighters for that BB, but having some in the next cap over just in case might be a good idea. The BB is mostly useless, but less so if she can bait some bomb planes for you to strafe.

I was pointing out that there weren't only DDs and CLs. Also, Gassa has one of the best Valentine CGs.

This is pretty much it. CVs suffer from the all-or-nothing type of balance (see also: detonations), and AP bombs just make that even worse. And it's not like Tirpitz was the most OP T8 BB that really needed that nerf. If anything, it made brawling a less viable choice for a brawling battleship, and everyone just suggests camping harder. Which is really what the game needs. More camping. gg wg

So fun when someone has an issue with something, and the responses are "don't play those ships" and "camp harder". While OP doesn't do a great job in convincing me there's a problem, responses like those do.

Izumo has two things going for her: Great accuracy. People say Iowa and Missouri are more accurate, but honestly, while they've got slightly better sigma, they're worse at everything else. When I got Missouri she felt like a sawed-off video game shotgun in comparison. The shells also have surprisingly good penetration, if you can aim well enough. Great armour. Granted, the armour isn't great against HE, but that's not exactly unique. Other ships also eat a lot of HE damage. But as for AP, you can tank all day long. As long as you're not facing a Yamato or Musashi, you're not going to take a lot of damage at all. As long as you angle properly. This is pretty much true. Say what you want about Izumo, but Amagi is one of the best battleships tier for tier. There's little that matches the fun of playing Amagi.

Casual Pringles. Playful Asashimo Queen Nagananami

The PA DDs have decent guns to make up for their lack of being able to torp other DDs, as well as perma smoke. Asashio? Nope, absolutely nothing to make up for being the worst ship in the game against everything that isn't a battleship or carrier, and even there probably won't make much of a difference due to all the hydro being introduced in the game. It's getting to the point where having high-detection torpedoes doesn't matter much, since they're going to be hydroed anyway. High-speed high-damage torpedoes are only getting better by making everything else worse.

The British cruiser line is one of the hardest lines to play in the game, but it's also a very rewarding line to play. However, that's only if you learn how to play them well enough, since they're extremely fragile ships. Key points: Figure out what your exit strategy is BEFORE you enter any situation. Since you're a very fragile ship, you need to be able to skedaddle if (or more likely when) you need to. Learn how and when to use your smokes. You should go through most of them in most matches. If you don't, you're probably sitting behind islands, or in rare occasions, taking a DD role when there are none. Or you've messed up. Most of the time when you sit in smoke, you want to have hydro active. Everyone likes to torpedo smokes, so be prepared for that. Don't sit still, whether in smoke or behind islands. People can figure out where you are, and sitting still only makes you an easier target. Move back and forth all the time, but keep within cover. Never show broadside to anything. Even DDs can citadel you, and it's usually not worth it to get a torpedo salvo off. Don't fire if you don't have an exit strategy and you're not spotted. Broadside cruiser you should at the waterline. DDs you shoot centre mass. BBs and angled cruisers you should in the superstructure or upper belt.

There's no reason for me to listen to someone who claims a ship isn't OP then describes it as OP. There's also no reason for me to listen to someone who makes up arguments to argue against. Doesn't that happen with pretty much any premium ship? Back when ships like Tirpitz and Atago were really powerful there were tons of idiots sailing around in them thinking they'd do well just because the ships were good, even if they had no idea of how to play at that tier nor in those ships.

Why do you bother quoting me if you're going to ignore it anyway and make crap up? And again you show you're worse in Loyang than in other ships. That's on you, not the ship. So Akizuki has better concealment than Loyang. Good to know.

My conclusion is that your arguments indicate that Loyang is more OP than I've argued for.

How to make enemy players make mistakes is how you play the game in any ship. It doesn't explain anything about how strong a particular ship is. One thing I like about WoWs is that player skill is far more important than ship strength. A good player in a bottom tier ship will beat a bad player in a top tier ship most of the time. If you want to argue about a particular ship's strengths, you don't use different skill levels for players, or examples where you outplay someone. You can outplay anyone in any ship given the right circumstances, and since you make up your hypothetical examples yourself (or cherrypick from experience), you can paint any ship in any way you want. As for the actual power of Loyang, I've expressed my opinion of that before.

Personally I think the X is a cheat, but WG allows it, so it's not. The only reason I'm using it is because it's part of the map mod I like. There are lots of mods that, by definition, gives an advantage. Most are relatively small, like a clearer map, moving and resizing UI elements, and stuff like that. I've heard a lot of complaints about the mod (Navigator or something?) that shows your angle and your target's angle relative to each other. But the map mod I'm using gives a direction line for the target on the minimap. That's pretty much exactly the same information, but I've only really heard complaints about one of them. Then there are mods like the speed indicator, which gives the same information as the smoke, but in my experience also with a longer delay, so it's not really useful unless it's a bow-on ship (which in practice makes it less useful anyway, since those fights tend to drag on long enough for you to get used to where to shoot). The point is, just saying "it gives an advantage" doesn't actually say much about whether it's a cheat. I'd rather say, "it gives an unfair advantage". What's unfair is subjective, but there isn't really a hard line to be drawn anyway, other than what WG allows.

I've been reading this for a while, and what I don't get with your arguments is that you keep suggesting sub-optimal plays for the Loyang in attempts to make it seem less powerful. All I get from it is that you don't know how to play the ship to its strengths.

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/announcement/3-world-of-warships-forum-rules/

Orion is stupid strong. You tank like a boss, and your HE will citadel all cruisers you meet and do massive damage to DDs and good damage to BBs. If you see a broadside BB, you can turn to AP for reliable massive damage.