AnotherDuck

Why should I read your previous arguments if you don't read my current? What I said was that your argument that an Atlanta can't hit anything based on a single example proves absolutely nothing. If I can hit more than that on the same target in a Benson at ~12 km (which depends entirely on the guns and my aim, and not on the Benson's stealth, so bringing that up is just misunderstanding/not reading on your part), then it either means that Atlanta player is crap, or that I'm an expert marksman with the moonshooters a Benson is equipped with. That's also including that a Benson doesn't have nearly as many guns as an Atlanta. Notice that I've said nothing about survivability, stealth, or any other factors. My entire point is that you used a crap player as an argument for the ship being bad, which is absolute horse manure. If you want to claim a ship is bad, use a real argument. I don't really fear any cruisers on any map, but I'd be just as wary of an Atlanta as any other cruiser. If I feared other ships I wouldn't be playing destroyers.

I see my point went completely over your head. Absolutely none of that has to do with hit rates. The stealth and speed (this isn't WoT where firing on the move reduces precision) has nothing to do with how accurate I am at max range. Closing the distance is explicitly contrary to firing guns at max distance.

About a handful of times in all games I've seen someone request smoke or Def AA. I've granted most of those requests if I was able to. Radar I've requested myself more often (and once or twice been granted). Focus fire is more common, and often a decent idea. I often ping enemy DDs showing up (within reasonable range of others) just so people don't miss them. When it comes to carriers, I've only played a few games (and I'm terrible at it, because I don't like RTS games). Carrier competence is about as expected compared to other classes and the difficulty of playing them. If I ping the map, either a carrier snipe group at an edge, or a strike group in the middle of the map, I often get a response from allied carriers. Sure, there are some terrible ones, but there are good ones as well. In conclusion I don't think anything needs to be done about carrier behaviour. Or at least, not to any extent more than any other class.

So if you guys are bottom tier almost every time, where are all the players who're almost always in top tier? There are 24 ships in a battle. 80% of them can't be bottom tier all the time. Actually, I can answer that. They're the ones reading this thread and go .

I've once or twice turned off AA in my DD while I was capping and the CV was leading planes to me. Sabotaging your own DDs attempt to cap isn't what a CV should do. But other than expecting CV players to not actively harm your team, don't tell them to only do what you think they should do. "My way or the highway" isn't a mentality that's constructive in this game, especially if you don't actually know what's best for the team.

Simple question: Why do you bring up an incompetent player as an example for how a ship performs? I have better hit rates than that in an AFT Benson at max range.

Should be base xp. Now, if they could only remove the premium time bonus from all places that uses "base xp"...

Considering the tier spread of the maps, you could use that as an indication if you're top tier or not, and choose ship depending on that. No.

Balance is when you have the advantage. Just like MM works perfectly when you're top tier, and it's broken when you're bottom tier.

Because you've used up your luck on this game.

My solution for that is to make more room in the masts and what else. I want my ship to look like a floating carnival (dayo). But really, it doesn't matter so much exactly how it's shown, as long as it's reasonably visible.

Pressing WASD keys? That's just bothersome. I open the map and plot a course for the autopilot, so I can focus all my attention on my Big Guns.

One thing I can say about hanging out with the battleships in the back is that most cruisers have fairly accurate guns even at max range, so while a battleship would do better getting closer than max range, a cruiser at max range can still hit reasonably well (especially if you have an aiming module). This is generally what works best for me if I'm directly facing battleships and I'm their prime target (which is a bad idea in a cruiser, but sometimes hard to avoid). If the enemy battleships have closer and more important targets than you, you can move closer without risking too much. And again, don't show a broadside. When it comes to early cap support, it is a dangerous game to play, but it's like that for the destroyers as well, in particular the enemy destroyers you're going to meet (because you can eat them for breakfast given the chance). Make use of islands to cover you from battleship fire, while at the same time try to not hide behind islands to the degree you can't fire on the enemy destroyers. The idea is to sink or scare away the enemy destroyers from the cap, so that your allied destroyers can cap in peace. Often it's best to be just outside the cap, but it depends on the map, what your battleships are doing, and other things. As a small note, if you get close to where there are enemy destroyers, pop a plane if you have one. Most destroyers try to hide behind islands, so if you can get an aerial spot of them that's going to make them think twice about advancing and threatening your destroyers, and it can spot ambushes.

It adds up win rates for each surviving plane.

So because people are irrationally more afraid of a little bit of repairable fire damage than they are of a lot more irrepairable AP damage, we need to make HE less effective? I play enough BBs to know that damage from HE and fires is something you can usually ignore unless you're focus-fired upon. Bringing up this one example where a BB messed up DCP usage doesn't mean that's in any way indicative of the overall picture. AP damage, on the other hand, is something you need to avoid. That's much harder to repair, and if you get citadelled, you've just lost a good chunk of your tanking ability. I think the only reason BB players don't complain about AP damage is that if they do, their own main damage output will be nerfed, even if it would help their survivability a lot more. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, even if that hand slaps your arse far worse than other hands. People being irrational is why IJN DDs have been nerfed far beyond reason. Also, this crap about the MM deliberately deciding games before they happen just needs to stop. That's just an excuse players have when they don't get the results they think they deserve.

That's not my experience. I often talk in the beginning of the match to get the team to at least agree on a general strategy. Sure, they don't always listen, but more often than not, they do. If they don't, I usually try to figure out a plan according to what they actually do, and work from there.

Poll sucks; didn't vote. Other than when those kill missions appear, I don't notice it that much. Generally speaking, fast-firing guns should focus more on killing off enemies, and slower guns should focus more on dealing a lot of damage. It's all situational, though.

All of that would make for a good point. If HE was actually out-performing AP in actual battles. Now, it's true for some ships, such as if you're shooting DDs, but other than that, AP does more.

I'm not sure if I'm using the right terms, but while we have a lot of the stat-boost flags, most players don't have a lot of the special flags you get from events and such (beta, ranked, etc). They're also easier to see than something on the hull.

Was Shima ever an above-average performing ship? I've used it a bit, as before I had Torpedo Acceleration on my Kagero captain but not Concealment Expert, and with that the close range torps are a little too close range. However, the long range torps aren't quite as bad with TA, and as you mentioned, you can often catch others by surprise (I've had some funny moments with that). Not having smoke also works better if you have longer range torps. Considering the performance of the ship (and generally considered straight out worse than Fubuki), I wonder if it would be better to place the TRB on the Engine Boost slot rather than on the Smoke slot.

I've always liked Ocean. It's a fun map that requires a different strategy from most maps. You have to think more about what your ship is good at, and play to those strengths, since you can't just use islands to cover up for the flaws.

AP accounts for the most amount of damage done to battleships and cruisers, I believe.

This is something that could probably work. That shows who's a good player, or who's good at a particular task with a particular ship, but not who's bad, and the last bit is usually what creates toxicity. Some kind of flag would probably be best for that.

Because they can't actually buff the IJN DDs, since that would inconvenience the BB players. Can't have any of them actually be better than the bottom few ships of their respective tiers. I've yet to see a sign that WG doesn't hate IJN DDs. Above T5, Fubuki has the best performance and claimed to be the only bright spot after Minekaze, and she's still only a third from the bottom (winrate, last 2 weeks). Shimakaze has a better winrate than Midway, and a better survival rate than Gearing. She's the second worst in those stats. In average experience, damage, kills, kills/deaths, she's plain worst. So naturally WG buffs cruisers to make it even harder for them.

Yeah, I miss it too.