VC381

I'm not sure how easy it is to truly carry someone way above where their ability would normally rank them. After a point even the best players won't be able to carry while basically being in a 6v7, especially if the other side always has a div where both players are of higher skill. You would basically rank at the average skill between the two players, so some might rank higher than they deserve but at the expense of holding the more experienced guy back. Anyway, I see the opinion is against me, but I still think it would be fair as long as it was mirrored. If you look at other games, League of Legends always allowed pairs in their "solo" ranked mode, and that's 2 players in a team of 5 or 40%. I haven't played for a while but recently I think they opened to any number, so you can have 4 people queue together and the 5th guy a random solo, and it's fair because the enemy team is exactly the same.

The MM in normal already mirrors them quite well. If you had exactly equal number of divisions per team, and say each one was max 2 players (instead of 3), would it really be that bad?

Nice game I don't own the Arizona but I wouldn't play her in ranked because she is slow (don't play NM either for same reason). So far I'm alternating between Warspite and Mutsu. If you want reliable guns, Warspite really does it in style, AND no T6 BB can angle against you. Same for Mutsu, but you trade some accuracy for amazing speed to get around the map and surprise people.

If 3 out of 100 people in the queue are CV, assuming all those 100 are eligible to be in the same match in some combination, the the probability of choosing a 12-man team without a CV is 0.97 ^ 12 = 0.6938 or 69.38%. So the probability of getting a team with a CV assuming 3% of players are queuing in one is, indeed, about a third (although by slightly different maths to yours). And this is true, high tier you see CV games maybe 1 in 3 or 1 in 4. @Dropsiq love the news about that damage control consumable. That could indeed be a very interesting "nerf" that actually increases the skill requirement of BBs but also their vulnerability. At the moment the long CD of the repair party actually makes BBs benefit disproportionately from captain skills like High Alert and Jack of all Trades. I still think though that the issue is one of number and position. Say what you like about them, but camping BBs are good news for cruisers. It creates a mid-range battle space for cruisers to fight DDs and each-other. It might be annoying to occasionally take a random citadel from somewhere you didn't expect, but it's far more annoying not being able to go anywhere because there are BBs around every island corner and pushing into the cap without caring because nothing scares them. Cruisers need to "cruise", to use their speed to get places and do things because that's their role and how they are meant to affect the game. They can't do that if the maps funnel them into shooting galleries that are choked with BBs who can get there at almost the same time.

Cleveland : 24Farragut : 5 Shinonome : 21Mutsu : 21+1 = 22 speed and firepower, killer combinationRyūjō (1/2/2) : 10Fusō : 21Graf Spee : 15-3 = 12 aside from historical interest, very "meh" ship for meWarspite : 13Molotov : 7Budyonny : 11 Duca d'Aosta : 18 Perth: 13

Yeah, I don't think it should be balanced against the possibility of being +2. But the detectability discrepancy is a contributing factor. I don't think DDs deserve a nerf but it doesn't help that they can perma-spot cruisers with little to no consequence to themselves while BBs focus them down. I get that the game mechanic is supposed to be DDs cap, Cruisers support, BBs try to delete cruisers to indirectly help friendly DDs, but it's not easy being caught in the middle of that theoretical rock-paper-scissors. It's also no surprise that some of the best cruisers in game are usually considered to be the ones with great detectability or some additional tricks in that area (smoke). So yeah, you're probably on to something there.

She's basically like the Pensacola but a little less agile so you can't troll dodge all day (and now less stealthy as well but with a slight RoF buff and longer range). Don't be too drawn in by the radar, it's not worth your skin if you don't have islands to get in range to use it. She's a decent medium range flanker. Try to use AP more and seek out broadside targets, especially enemy cruisers but BBs will suffer too if you aim a bit higher. Use the extra range to HE BBs a bit more than you would in other US ships; more Myoko style. Leave radar rushes for later in the game, work out where the enemy BBs aren't and seek out Belfasts and such things that you eat for breakfast.

El2aZeR beat me to it. At leas we agree on this one US cruisers have an accumulation of "soft" advantages (agility, concealment, gun handling, special AP shells) that make them more than what the sum of their parts seem on the surface. Also top 3 tiers got a very nice RoF buff not long ago.

I made this point as well in the Cruiser Survivability thread (too similar discussion, forgetting which thread I wrote what in). It's a very good point. BBs aren't supposed to be the stealthy class, it would help a lot if they were more visible overall since they have enough strengths in other areas. Having said that I do run CE on a few BBs and its evil as all hell

This is not really true. A BB can't predict his dispersion when he fires and can't do anything about it afterwards, but a cruiser can see the shells spread and as I said, make adjustments to dodging until the second the shells hit the water. Dodging like a maniac is doing it wrong, it makes you slow and actually quite predictable. You don't just WASD randomly and pray for bad dispersion, you plan each dodge based on your enemy firing and the shells you see coming. Yes there is RNG in the game but it doesn't negate skill. Good players get consistently good results for a reason: it's not all random if you know how to stack the odds in your favour. That's why I say it's risk management, for both BBs firing and cruisers dodging. It's easy to remember some rare events as examples but it's completely wrong to think about probability like that.

I had an 8-cruiser per side game the other day and they all went YOLO and dropped like flies to each-other. So yes, it's not completely a BB population issue, but it is still relevant. I don't fully agree that there is a "problem" with cruiser survivability so let's call it a "challenge". If you took a cruiser and a BB in a vacuum, the cruiser probably won't win, but won't exactly have a challenge surviving either (even assuming he actually fights). The challenge comes from the situations cruisers are placed in, where BB focus fire is a factor. Not the only one, but one nonetheless. A well played cruiser isn't an easy target but gets perceived as one anyway, because it's bigger and more often spotted than a DD but closer and easier to damage than the enemy BBs. If we accept the idea that BB population control (either hard cap or via various soft incentives) is at best wishful thinking, then the way to ease the challenge on cruisers is to give BBs more reason to fire at each-other rather than focusing the cruiser. Or, paradoxically, to make them camp more (because contrary to the popular myth that annoys me whenever I see it, a BB at 18+ km is basically zero threat to a cruiser). I would actually suggest a global nerf to BB concealment. It's not their role to be stealthy and making sure you know where they are means a) BBs will be tempted to shoot at each-other before they can see the cruisers and b) that cruisers can better plan their movements to avoid that feeling of "surprise citadels from every angle" as soon as you're spotted.

This argument only works up to a point. At the ranges you're talking about, the shells come in pretty slow and the game gives you nice bright white graphics for them. It is perfectly possible to see the dispersion develop and fine adjust with the rudder to dodge individual shells. Especially in small and nimble T8 cruisers like New Orleans. A quick tap to Q and E and that citadel becomes a harmless splash next to your ship. Of course this has limits as well, but as I said it's all about risk management.

In that case, Priority Target and Incoming Fire Alert are your friends.

You can use stealth and dodging down to about 10km depending on what cruiser you're in and what BB is shooting at you. It's a bit of a gamble but you can, let's say, "manage the risk" quite well if you keep your wits about you. The cruisers that can't don't need to be that close anyway.

A BB can obliterate a cruiser... But not from 20km. Usually not from 15km either. You can see the shells coming, watch the dispersion, you can dodge. Cruisers aren't meant to rely on angling vs. BBs and what a cruiser can and can't bounce changes from ship to ship. Learn your ship's armour scheme and what guns will overmatch you, and practice dodging more.

As I keep saying, the ship turns on a dime and has very good gun handling and turret angles. You keep ignoring that. Also the concealment is above average for her tier, only Fiji and Belfast are better. It has the tools to fight effectively at the medium ranges it's meant to. If you refuse to accept those tools are there and that it's a valid playstyle I can't help you. It's not even a L2P issue, just a playstyle one. Clearly the ship doesn't suit you, but just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad. I will never understand why people play ships they don't like and ask for them to be buffed. If all the others are better why not play them instead? Because you want a New Orleans? I have bad news for you, if this is your experience and attitude at Pensacola, the best advice I can give is for you to quit the line.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree then. But I for one am looking forward to AP DBs and seeing how they affect both setups.

So the Stuka is one of history's most (in)famous dive bombers and WG make it a TB with a "special drop pattern". I don't mind this being around even though an actual line is highly unlikely, but I expected some unique specialised DB tricks.

Guess what? In Pensacola you can get to 11km from target undetected, unleash AP hell, wiggle and disappear again. I and other people have listed several other advantages of Pensacola plus disadvantages of other ships you insist on comparing it unfavorably to, which you've just chosen to ignore. If you're expecting something else from the ship there's no shame in admitting you don't like it and asking for help (which some have already offered despite your negative attitude). You could really learn a lot by asking politely for advice, instead of stating your opinion as fact and just digging in with rage and accusations when people disagree with your precious views. And I love it when people stat dump. It proves nothing other than the fact most players don't know how to use the ship. P.S. for the record I was not comparing Pensacola to Atago. I was only using the range they share to point out how absurd your argument is that lower tier ships having longer range somehow "proves" Pensacola is bad, when those ships are completely different and can't be compared on just one stat. Well done for being too blinded by your righteous indignation to understand the point of my post and the irony of your response.

Err... Pensacola has much better stealth than Myoko these days. Also she's a very small target, has an insane rudder shift and a tight turning circle, turret traverse can actually keep up with the ship and turret angles are amazing for getting all guns on target while minimizing your own exposure. Also that AP. Trouble is, most of her advantages are "soft" in that they aren't immediately obvious and require a bit of practice and players awareness to take advantage of. Difficult ship to play, maybe, and with a different playstyle that might not suit some players. But weak? No sir, no way. Also your range argument makes no sense. Atago is one of the most OP ships in the game and has the same range as Pensacola while being a tier higher. Range isn't the only stat that matters and to be honest long range is a noob trap on basically all ships. The cruisers that have significantly longer range than Pensacola are lumped with a catalogue of other disadvantages, usually including terrible concealment and handling like a pregnant whale. P.S. worst armour? Have you played Shchors?

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Consumables#Damage_Control_Party It is that number. 10s IJN BBs, 20s USN BBs, 15s every other BB except Warspite (5s). The best IJN BB to quickly train a captain in is Atago

AP bombs are actually a good start. By specialising US CVs further and buffing them in the process they can give them a unique way of impacting the game. You're entitled to your opinion but I still find it rather bigoted that you presume to tell others how to play. I used to think AS was useless as well and rage at people who played it... right up until I actually tried it and found it rather fun and effective. CV game impact is entirely relative to what the other CV is doing. AS is balanced and viable in that context, and AP bombs will only make it more so. Also, it's funny how quick people are to point out what specialised US setups can't do, neglecting the fact that a "versatile" IJN setup can very easily end up doing everything equally badly. At least a US setup always does one thing well.

US CVs are easier to play, partly because of fewer squadrons, but on top of that because they are specialised and their planes are more durable. I know really good IJN players can out-play either US setup but those players are the exception not the norm. You can pick a loadout knowing you're going to be very, very good at one thing without thinking too hard about it. Firstly, that balances the classes at average skill levels because IJN players will make more mistakes trying to cope with the multi-tasking. Secondly, that means you can get some really satisfying games that suit your taste (big plane kill numbers with AS or dropping the hammer on BBs with Strike) while having a more chilled out experience than the IJN micro-fest. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy IJN CVs a lot as well, but I'm not always in the mood for that level of work for my fun. I used to think this and I've changed my mind. Giving US balanced loadouts back just makes them more similar to IJN. It's a really lazy solution to say if one is better just make the other more similar, and it would actually be quite boring.

I found the Fubuki wasn't what I expected or wanted her to be. That doesn't mean she is bad, but I personally found her frustrating and not worth keeping. To me Shinonome is the real Fubuki, and the availability of that ship and the comparison just makes the actual Fubuki experience that much more bitter for me. Not only in terms of gameplay but in terms of appearance and historical accuracy. But it's partly an issue of playstyle. I think to do well with Fubuki you need to be a bit more patient and passive, and eventually you'll catch something in your endless waves of torps and/or set enough fires with the guns to rack up good damage and wins.

And many people still consider the US cruiser line the weakest post-buffs, or that the buffs were in the wrong places and didn't "solve" whatever perceived issues people have with those ships. Just no pleasing some. And yes, I believe the buffs were not necessary, but that doesn't mean I would make a noise against them. I have an opinion but I'm largely indifferent to the outcome. Same with US CVs. I'm happy playing them as they are and clearly a lot of other people are as well. As for your car comparison, variety is being able to choose the car with the better fuel efficiency if you don't care about performance. You, like the others, are assuming performance is the only thing everyone cares about.