AnotherDuck

Didn't answer what tier I most play. It's spread out. At the moment probably T8-T9, since I have two ships per tier there I regularly play, whereas other tiers have a single ship. I play mostly DDs because they're just the most fun. Very risky gameplay, since a single mistake can easily sink you, but also the most rewarding if you do well. BBs can be fun as well, but they're more static. Cruisers are somewhat in between. I think CVs are the most powerful (assuming a competent player; there's a reason they're capped), BBs are the easiest to play, DDs are the most vital, and CLs/CAs are the most average.

Top 3 1st: Umikaze All time favourite. The least tier-sensitive ship in the game. Works best in T4-T5 matches. It's just so fun with the very quick torpedo reload and the great range. 2nd: Isokaze It's basically a slower Minekaze at a tier lower. Still good agility, and good torps. Always a blast to play. 3rd: Fuso Just plain the most fun battleship to play. Did awesome in the low-tier section of Ranked, but she also handles higher tier battleships well enough. Have on multiple occasions taken out several T8 battleships. Works both as a sniper and as a brawler. Worst 3 1st: Carriers I've played a few battles in carriers. Didn't like it. Expected, since I don't like RTS, but I'm not going to knock something I haven't tried. So I did. 2nd: Nürnberg Was either this or the previous Karlsruhe, but I had better results in that one. Nürnberg just isn't a good enough ship. I've had some fun moments, like instantly deleting a cruiser, but those are rare, and don't make up for the sheer amount of lackluster performance in between. 3rd: Nagato I'm not sure what it is with this ship. I get decent damage done, but I never really have any great matches, and not often good matches. She's less precise than Fuso, and have fewer guns. The larger guns just seem to overpen more than help with penetration and damage.

Agreeing with the above. If it's just something you need to grind a little bit more, premium giving an advantage to the amount of time spent grinding is completely fair. That's what you spend money on premium for: To not have to play as much to reach the same goals as non-premium players. But if it makes it plain easier, like with a single-match xp requirement, then it's different. That's simply pay to win.

I used to bring my Umikaze into T5 games. That was fun.

They got it right. Just not the way you wanted it.

Been playing DDs, as I don't want to play battleships, because everyone else is doing that, and I don't want to play cruisers, because everyone is playing battleships. The torp aiming visuals are... spotty, at best. Sometimes, if you looked into the ocean where the sun glared back at you, it would normally be very hard to see the aim arc, but with the new one, it's very slightly easier to see it, but still almost invisible. Other than that, it's just plain harder to see. I would like the aiming visuals to simply be more opaque. As it is, they're very translucent, and prone to disappearing in the background. I also noticed some jumping in the aim. About half a narrow spread back and forth when trying to aim. Annoying.

I forgot the names of the maps, so I might be mistaken, but the spirally one (Shards?) was fun. It's radially symmetrical, or whatever the term is, rather than a plain mirror. This map is by far the best of the new ones. Sleeping Giant was Islands but not sealclub-sized. Boring. The diagonal one (Archipelago?) was a duller version of Trap. These don't really add much to the game in my opinion. Sure, another map isn't bad, but if it makes the actually unique maps show up less the game is worse off for having them. They work, technically speaking, but I don't care for them one bit.

Like everyone else, I prefer the buoys. The spotty lines are less visible, which is a dealbreaker. I don't care much for the aesthetics, and having both wouldn't be bad for me. Just bring the buoys back. The minimap changes were fine, though.

This is certainly a game mode that the playerbase needs to get used to. I encountered it in a few battles in lower tiers (T4 mostly), and it was great fun. Straight seems like a good map for it as well, which was the only one I saw. I play aggressively, and in DDs, so often I die early, but I've found that that initial push motivates other players to join in. So far, every time, the campiest team lost. Working as intended, I'd say.

So all you have is insults.

The last few weeks I've seen maybe two cyclones. Granted, I sometimes don't survive long enough to see it, since I play relatively aggressively in most ships, but if they're so common you'd think I'd have seen them a lot more.

Good luck, and fair seas!

The post I was responding to had a smiley, so I took it as a joke or at most half-serious and responded likewise. If you can't accept that, it's your loss. If you can't accept logic and respond with insults and faulty claims, that's your loss. I never claimed I wasn't a DD specialist. I claimed I play mostly non-DD ships in tiers lower than T8. That's what I play currently, and have been playing since I got Fubuki and Benson. Do you have anything of worth to say for once, or do you want to derail this further?

Remember, whip them from behind to get them moving. In front to stop them.

What are you on about? Stop with the useless insults. In lower tiers, or more accurately, anything below tier 8, I play mostly non-DDs. Those are the ships I try to advance in the tech tree. The IJN, and USN DDs I mostly play at T8-T9. All four of them. In other words, your attempt at a personal attack to strengthen your argument isn't even on the mark. The post I responded (which was most likely about as serious as my response) to didn't specify any specific tier where it was a problem. It only said that if you want to be top tier, you play T10, which means it's a "problem" over all other tiers. It also suggested that MM bases if you're top or bottom tier on your skill. And since you hear much more complaining from lower skilled players, it's only natural to assume that MM selects lower skilled players to more often be bottom tier. Now, I don't believe MM does things like that, so it was mostly a joke. Here, have a smiley for clarification.

I'm sorry.

Why do I never get into those battles when I queue up with Fletcher or Kagero? It's rare there are fewer than three destroyers per team in those matches.

In a 3-Kitakami division.

Even good players have losing streaks. Don't worry too much about it, unless frequent defeats happen over a large number of battles (at least above 100, but even that is a small number if you want accurate stats). When you get a new ship, you can also expect to lose a little more frequently. You've come from a ship you've played for a while at max upgrades, and then you switch to a new ship you're not used to with stock equipment and no captain skills (unless you buy yourself past those issues). It's only natural that it takes a while to get used to how the new ship handles, and what strengths and weaknesses she has. Other than that, look around on the forums for advice threads, and see if you can see anything you can learn from them. Or just ask if you've got specific issues.

I've been sailing Ashigara only within the current inflation of battleships, and while I've not done great (not that I'm a great cruiser player), and it's not a significant number of battles, the results aren't that bad overall. You need to be extra careful these days, and only advance if you've got an exit route and the cover of islands. Or snipe and turn, turn, turn.

You mean MM selects the crappy players as bottom tier more frequently? Because from all the whining, it seems like there are more bad than good players affected by the "unfairness" of MM. I've been mid-tier with most of my T7 ships recently, I believe. Not a statistically viable sample, though.

I'll just echo this. Yes, it happens, and yes, people whine about it, but in my experience it's not nearly the problem people make it out to be. It's just that if it happens, people remember it. Selective bias and all.

I want the T6 ships back into the T4 spread as well, if that's what you're saying. And I'm totally not just saying that because I want to be able to shoot at T6 ships in Isokaze. But yeah, the argument that it's better to have it at a tier you can get through relatively quickly is a solid one. If it's frustrating, it's frustrating for a shorter time, and if it isn't, well, you'd be fine either way. I also wonder if it would help the balance to have some ships face a higher tier earlier (Isokaze is a prime example, but there are others that can handle +2 tier ships), as that might improve the chances of the ships in an tier with a rougher spread to face overall fewer +2 tier ships.

I think we should play in exactly the same way: Whichever way satisfies my fragile ego. That's fair for everyone (especially for myself).

If CV players are as crap as claimed, it really shouldn't be hard to go in as a CV and dominate.