AnotherDuck

I am. Remove radar. I don't claim it's the only solution, though. Then again, any way you nerf it is probably going to be a good thing.

But players are always so well behaved. What could possibly go wrong?

Queen Elisabeth has great AA for a ship without defensive AA. That's about it. The worst problem is that you eat damage like there's no tomorrow no matter how you angle, and you're so slow you can't avoid anything. And I've never managed to get the AP to work on anything other than broadside battleships (although then it does reliably 10k+ damage). So like how the line is commonly played, just use HE. I don't actually mind the gun layout, especially once I got used to it. And the dispersion is great. Once I bought the Missouri, I was dissappointed at how wild the shots went. The other great thing about Izumo is that you can tank AP for days on end if you show little to no angle. The bad part about that is that you end up bowtanking for large portions of games, which may not be the most interesting gameplay. Compared to Amagi, yeah, it's a worse ship, though. Amagi has an amazing damage output, and the speed and agility to avoid a lot of damage, plus the same reliable armour all IJN BBs have that works well if angled.

Radar makes the game worse. Remove it for a better game. Sure, you can work around it, but you can also work around not having radar. Less radar means more danger to BBs, which means less danger to CAs.

The new one seems to always be in the way of something, so you either need to keep it minimised, which makes it useless, or you need to move it every time you change port tabs. Change back, please.

The new one seems to always be in the way of something, so you either need to keep it minimised, which makes it useless, or you need to move it every time you change port tabs. Change back, please.

Well, Gearing does have stupid range on the torps, so TA is only a benefit. I have Gearing researched (for a long time), but haven't had the credits to buy it. Haven't used the PA DDs at all, actually. Thought about it, but I just never found them interesting.

I used to like TA, and I used it with decent success with the 20 km torps (the only way to use them, really). 16 km is still longer than what's even practical, since you'll often have teammates on the other side. Not that I didn't sink a few ships at 15+ km range... Anyway, back to TA, I think it's mostly a waste of skillpoints when you can already choose faster and shorter range torpedoes without skill modification. 12 km is enough range for anything that isn't wide area denial, and 8 km works if that's what you prefer. The 9.6 km torps are nice enough, but I don't think the extra 5 kn is worth it personally. I didn't notice any difference in hit rate, but there are definitely a fewer hit opportunities. Kagero has so good stealth that it works with F3 TA, but it's still very dangerous. You are going to hit, though.

I'm rather trigger happy with my torpedoes, so I use max range quite a bit. Oftentimes there are situations where you can't get closer without too much risk, or where you'll miss your timing if you try to get closer, or sometimes where you're just en route to some other place and happen to come across a good torpedo chance at that range. Learning to aim torpedoes is all about finding the right opportunity and predicting movement, and you simply have more chances for that if you have longer range. I also tried the F3s with the old T9 Kagero with Torpedo Acceleration. Fun, but on the whole not practical. That's high risk, high reward, if anything. Probably because missing half the torps is quite significant. They're slow to reload, but they're still good torpedoes.

First of all, Shimakaze is a relatively fast ship (hardly "slower than most of them") that can outrun pretty much any ship in the game. Russian DDs aside, but they've got crap concealment, so they won't come as a surprise. Saying you can't run from DDs hunting you is absolutely false. If you can't hit with the 12 km torps at around max range, you're probably bad at aiming them. Sure, you should probably not shoot at that range if you've got the option to get closer, but if you never use that range you might as well pick the 8 km torps or pick Torpedo Acceleration (which makes it go down to 9.6 km). Besides, getting within 12 km or even 8 km isn't "really close". I regularly get to almost detection range if I can. I'd pick the TRB any time over smoke in Shimakaze if I could. If you have twice the number of torpedoes, you can easily stick a flooding and sink any ship in two hits. You wouldn't even have to choose between spreading the torpedoes around, saving a salvo or two, or going for narrow area saturation. Why do you emphasize "Tier FIVE" when you're going to upgrade the stats to T10 anyway? Isn't that kind of pointless? Besides, it's not like Kamikaze can't handle T10 unmodified... As for Loyang, I still think it's an OP P2W ship. Not hugely OP like Belfast, but still OP. Can easily manage some downgrades.

So Loyang should get nerfed. Benson is a fairly powerful ship. Anything that's described as power creeping Benson can reasonably be described as overpowered.

Actually, both names are used.

It's the only fair way to sealclub — bring a ship several tiers lower than what you're playing on. Then again, IJN DDs care little about tiers. I've done well in a T7 match in Umikaze. Got there on accident.

Only ones? I loved the T5 games in Umikaze. Barely played the ship since I couldn't get into those matches.

Duck tape, of course.

One thing to note about average damage and experience — they will rise with higher tiers. For a singular ship they might be somewhat accurate for you, and could give some indication of improvement, but they're still not comparable to other people. In addition, it depends on your playstyle. Some tactics give low rewards but reward winrate, while others do the reverse. I've had games where I was instrumental for victory, but among the last in experience, and I've had games where I got tons of damage and experience but probably didn't help the team much which resulted in losses.

This is something a lot of people don't understand. WR seems like RNG since each battle is more or less random if you win. Even 100 matches doesn't give an accurate estimation, since most people have had streaks of wins or losses for ten games or so (play enough games, and it will happen eventually). Such a streak would change the WR by 10% up or down, which is simply huge in terms of where normal WR numbers hover for 95% of players. You really do need more than 1000 games for a somewhat accurate number, and even then it's not completely accurate. You could compare it with average damage, for instance. Let's say your best damage with a certain ship is 100k damage, your worst is 0 damage, and the overall average is 50k damage. Now, most of these games, you're not going to do extremely good, and you're not going to be absolute crap, so the majority of games will probably lie in the 40k-60k range. This means it will take far less matches to get a relatively representative number for your average damage. It still means that if you don't have that many games, a few 0 or 100k damage matches will tilt the average significantly, but those are comparatively rare. With winrate, you can't win a single match 40%. It's either 0% or 100%, so any of those will tilt the average significantly, and as I mentioned, streaks do happen. That means you need a much larger sample size for a reliable number. This also doesn't take into account that winrate has a lot more factors involved than your average damage. With damage, most of it depends on yourself. Sometimes you meet better players, sometimes you meet potatoes. Sometimes you just make a mistake and run into half the enemy fleet. But it still depends mostly on your own performance. Winrate, on the other hand, depends on all 24 players in the match in equal numbers, so just by those numbers you only have a 1/24 chance of affecting the match. In addition to that, there are team matchups, divisions, and plain RNG that also affects the matches in ways you can't control. In short, WR is RNG for low numbers, but more accurate at high numbers. All statistics are like that, but WR has a much lower signal-to-noise ratio, which mandates a higher number than normal.

As long as they float, they can be repaired.

I think turtlebacks are okay for the German BBs. It gives them their unique flavour and encourages a somewhat different playstyle. If they need to be nerfed, it's better to do that elsewhere. For the rest of the BBs, no.

"Oh, come on, we're in the lead, what could go wrong?"

If you have an argument you just can't help but add personal attacks to and all those emoticons to it to spice it up, what kind of argument do you really have? Do you even believe in it yourself, or are you just trolling? Unless you have something substantial, I'm going to go with the latter and take appropriate measures.

These games are so hard to do well in. You really have to chase the enemies down, and in the RN CLs, that's not what you're cut out to do.

Well, German cruisers kind of need a buff just in general. They feel a bit lacklustre. They're not outright bad, and they're kind of tanky (which honestly helps a lot with frustration), but that's compared to other cruisers A general cruiser buff I could see is, that I mentioned before, that citadel damage is limted to something like 20% of max HP per hit. That's still a fair chunk of HP, but not the deletions that are pretty much as fun as detonations. And if that's too much of a nerf, the number can be tweaked, but it also gives a bit of room for increasing BB accuracy, which lowers the RNG factor. And you can't prove it's shouldn't be reconsidered. For the record, I find you the least convincing in the entire thread, and that includes @ForlornSailor. Did DDs have god performance compared to all other ships?

Buffing cruisers hurting cruisers is kind of a non-issue, since if they're buffed they're hurt less by it anyway. However, buffing cruisers would improve overall gameplay, I think. Especially if that also gives room to remove radar so they're not, as expressed elsewhere, completely helpless without it. Re-raising the citadels is definitely a good idea. At least the KM BBs are designed to be less susceptible to citadels, but they've also got worse dispersion and eat quite a bit of penetration damage to counteract that strength (YMMV whether it's enough). RN and USN BBs don't have that excuse.

I said it was a decent ship. Benson is a great ship. But you still have a premium ship with all the advantages of premium economy. Besides, my argument wasn't to actually remove the hydro, so don't pretend it was. We don't need P2W ships in the game.