DFens_666

So faildivs should get rewarded? Im not defending this in any way, ofc its BS, but actively rewarding faildivs by giving them better MM is surely not the way to go...

Venezia deserve the nerfs even for randoms. Quite frankly, the best nerf would have been to remove a turret. 15 guns is too much, same as Lyons 16. And the nerf to ruddershift is ok too. I think the entire SAP concept is bad, and it will get worse with the italian BB line having SAP too.

If Belfast is an indicator for british bias, then so is T-61 for germans. Potentially even Z-39. German BBs upon release? I know, is so long ago noone remembers... i wasnt even there, but ive heard about the queue being flooded with BBs, and the outcry about not having citadels. I think german ships in general are solid. Not worst, not best.

What part of "global nerf" dont you understand? Nerfing GC on its own is not a global nerf. Nerfing all AP bombs equally could be considered to be a global nerf tho... Half of the truth is ofc, that new german CVs dont get that global nerf treatment People were against nerfing premium ships directly, or better, the proposed nerfs to GC were stupid. Moving a ship tiers up and down is simply bad. I dont think, they would have received a similar outcry for making reasonable changes to GC without chaging tiers up and down (rudder shift nerf would have been good one). But they deliberately went with a stupid nerf, because they knew people would be against it, so they can say "people dont want us to nerf premiums".

Does it matter tho? In the end, we had teams running only Venezias. Not sure why only Stalingrads would be worse? Simple fact, as long as there are CVs, people will mostly pick Venezia and Stalingrad (and the occasional Halland). The Venezia nerfs arent significant enough to not pick it anymore imo. If everyone picks Venezia - nothing changes, as both teams get equal nerfs. The question would be, how long do you need to nerf Venezia to NOT pick it anymore

I wrote that a bit weirdly. I should have wrote "Haku is best at punishing Cruisers (without stationary)." I still disagree with the chain of events happening as you claim "People picked haku because it punishes stationary Cruisers", and yet people still picked Stalingrad. Ofc nothing will change. They could remove all planes from Haku, and people would pick Midway instead.

Because i think your reasoning is wrong (or upside down so to say). You said, Haku was picked because it counters stationary cruisers, which is wrong. Haku got picked because its a CV, and its the best CV at punishing stationary Cruisers. But people didnt pick Haku because there were too many stationary Cruisers. CVs got introduced to CBs, so people picked CV. Haku is best in a game, where no BBs/DDs are present and only Cruisers. Despite having Haku punishing stationary Cruisers, people still picked Stalingrad...

No, because you would have picked Midway instead of Haku. Its not about Haku or Midway, its about CV or BB. Either you pick CV or BB. Typhoon+ clans picked CV, because its better. If Haku wouldnt exist, they would have picked Midway. Maybe if only Audacious would have existed, it wouldnt have been as clear cut i assume. didnt claim that it does, yet complaining about GZ getting kicked into the dirt, while other ships have had the same faith doesnt help anyone either. If you dont want to get fucked by WG, dont buy anything, problem solved? Or accept that they can actually do it. Hell, they could do straight nerfs to premium ships and get away with it, but they choose not to do it. Tirpitz also got buffed several times But hey, lets ignore those Also id like a source for that reload-nerf claim. Infact, i dont find anything you claim: https://wiki.wargaming.net/ru/Ship:Tirpitz There is a history for ships, showing nerfs/buffs. Nerfs or buffs for Tirpitz: -In update 0.5.0.1, the Messerschmitt Bf.109 G ejection fighter was added. -0.5.8: the hull armored model is updated; the horizontal guidance angles of the turrets of the GK guns were changed - at the second, third and fourth turrets, the guidance angles expanded on each side by 3, 5 and 1 degrees, respectively (not sure what that actually means) - armor penetration of a high-explosive shell 380 mm Spr.Gr. L / 4.6 increased from 64 to 95 mm; high-explosive projectile armor penetration (PMK) 150-mm Spr.Gr. L / 4.5 increased from 25 to 37 mm. - armored deck thickness increased by 30 mm to correct for historical inconsistencies - the thickness of the lower part of the armored belt is recalculated according to the new method similar to the Bismarck battleship and now is 240 mm instead of the previous 170 mm - In update 0.5.14: the thickness of the rear armor plate of the GK towers was changed from 220 to 320 mm - in patch 0.6.4: PMK base range increased from 4.5 to 7 km -In update 0.6.8: for 105-mm PMK shells, the chance of arson was reduced from 9% to 5%, and damage from 1300 to 1200; the range of the PMK increased from 7 to 7.5 km. - In update 0.6.12: the parameter "Visibility when firing a HA in smoke" has been changed to 15.05 km; - Increased armor penetration of a high-explosive projectile PMK 150 mm caliber from 36 mm to 37 mm - Update 0.8.6: PMK high-explosive shell penetration increased from 18 to 26 mm - In update 0.8.11, it was changed: the settings for the ellipse of the dispersion of shells of the GK guns are reduced to the values of American and British battleships. Tons of buffs - 1 nerf for 105mm secondaries. And the global smoke firing penalty nerf. Dnno about the angles if that was a nerf or buff, cant be concluded for me, even if it was a nerf, Tirpitz got so many more buffs over time its not even a competition.

Didnt really change that much, except that you will get a few more ricochets. Its still 70-80° instead of 75-80°. Why lowertier SAP is worse, is mostly due to the armor scheme of BBs. For me, they werent particulary bad btw. They are high up in my avg damage tier for tier (T5-7) despite not having HE. Most other Cruisers tend to get some fire damage in, which we know isnt that valuable. Not to mention, Venezia has almost twice the firepower per salvo (8/9 vs 15), only Brindisi comes closer with 12, while having the same reload as Venezia. The others have ofc better reload, while dealing (much) less damage per shell (4-5k vs 5200) You can ofc choose to ignore counterarguements, but thats not my fault... You claimed something -> i showed you how that is useless, because only someone playing a ship a lot, doesnt mean he is good with it (often enough its quite the opposite). But just for you, wasting half an hour of my time, so maybe this will finaly stop. And just to recap, you checked the first 30 players sorted by games played for Stalingrad? And 5 of those had better stats for Stalin? Can you link that post please? https://wows-numbers.com/de/ship/3760109008,Stalingrad/?order=battles__desc#leaderboard First 30 players, only SOLO stats - 15 players had both ships + 3 had <10 battles with Venezia, which i ignored (3 games, 4 games and 7 games, ond had worse stats than Stalin, one had better, and the last had significantly more damage with Venezia) - Out of those 15, 6 players had both more damage and WR with Venezia - 4 had more damage and WR with Stalingrad - 3 had better WR with Venezia while having less damage - 2 had better WR with Stalingrad while having less damage So come again? How did your scenario prove, Stalingrad is more OP than Venezia? I used YOUR method to analyze, and my picture seems to be different than yours. So which one is it? to the 2nd part: Why is Venezia better at carrying that a BB? It literally has the same tools available than BBs. Doesnt have DefAA nor Hydro. Has smoke, which lets you survive longer. It only has damage output, same as BBs. The biggest difference, it can blapp DD IF someone is spotting the DD for him (CV, other DD, radar) or the DD is dumb. Especially when you claim, Cruisers have more utility, they should be worse damage dealers. And Venezia isnt. It doesnt even have HE to farm fire damage, yet it outdamages all Cruisers and almost all BBs (except Conqueror - coal/steel ships i wont take into the equation). And it has the highest survivability of all ships, except CVs (for obvious reasons). It has to risk nothing, yet is amongst the highest damage dealers. And ontop of that, its direct competition Zao, Hindenburg and Henri dont have any utility either, they have to pump out as much damage as they can. And Venezia beats all of them in basicly everything.

you also have below average players being good in CVs, because CV skill doesnt translate into surfaceship play (and viceversa). Being good in a DD doesnt make you good in a CV. It wasnt in RTS CVs, and it still isnt, because its totaly different. TBH dont care about GZ - Atlanta anyone? You find useless ships on both sides, and Atlanta was a victim due to CV rework.

Why does it matter how many there are? If you would make CVs even stronger, maybe you would make good players also play them again because they "have to"? To the 2nd point: Better chance than having a SU CV. Not to mention, a decent CV player has a bigger impact on Unicums/SU in any other class, which is simply ridiculous. You dont need to be a CV SU to rip DDs apart, even if they are unicums themselves. 2 SU facing in each other in BB/DD/Cruiser combo is much different than 2 SUs facing each other where one is the CV and the other is a BB/DD/Cruiser.

No, CVs in general were picked because they are better than BBs. Haku is just better than the others often enough, since DDs automatically got removed aswell due to CVs. Stalingrad was the most obvious choice, longrange railguns with strong AP and good HP. Venezia made it harder for CVs due to smoke, while also having good ballistics to hit ships at range. And pluging fire actually exists for Venezia at >20km. The concept is broken, good players are still able to dominate the game. There is no balancing possible which would make it any better (not to mention, why should a noob be allowed to be good in CVs, when he sucks in any other class?)

Might be good for average players - for good players i think its not really that good. Imo thats a treat russian BBs share, except a couple of em which truely are too strong. I basicly would pick any other BB on T9, maybe except FDG. But that i didnt play since it got buffed, so not sure about that.

I think Soyuz is straight up bad. And about the potatoes focusing certain ships: Its like playing Stalingrad. I can win by sheer tanking because everyone will shoot me. Only thing my team needs to do is atleast fight back (which sadly aint a given these days...). Kremlin is hyped. And we can blame a certain CC for that. Yep, very true. T5 is imo the worst offender of them all, but noone cares because its T5. Izmail i wouldnt even say its too strong, it atleast can be punished. Sinop would need smaller guns, that would balance it. The largest caliber guns Nagato and Colorado have no armor, Sinop has both. Cant judge Vladi really, as i only played it during the CB season and never in randoms.

Global nerf policy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ They probably want to nerf Enterprise, so GZ does over cliff too. Haku is most likely also a nerf candidate because CBs, which they could do on its own, but i think their main goal is nerfing Enterprise with it. The best way would have been, to never put AP bombs in the game, but have to have [edited] gimmicks i suppose.

Yep, nerf Venezia and nerf AP bombs a little. (tbh i dont have anything against the Venezia nerf in itself) FIXED COMRADE, DA DA GLORIOUS CV REEEEWORK.

Well, i was waiting for it tbh (and expecting it). Its done its purpose: Be the go to ship for CBs, potentially grab some money out of it from people who needed the FreeXP.

Well, the IJN T9/10 BBs also have 57mm deck, which has the same impact like Kremlins 60mm. Maybe WG thought, the limited DCPs have a bigger impact regarding fires. Hard for me to judge, maybe it is for those DCPing 1 fire every time, they might run out of DCPs pretty early (if they manage to survive for so long that is). And they have 1 repair party less. However, i wouldnt want to farm russian BBs if im an HE spammer, but thats me, others do it ofc. WGs biggest problem, is that they clinge too hard to their gimmicks (or nerfs&buffs), and they rather change everything else instead, shoehorning a ship into place. This might turn out to make all ships similar, because you cant have easy/hard ships to play. Easy ships to play are the first which the community is crying about (looking at Smolensk). Is it strong? I dont think so. Its annoying, i give you that, but its also very easy to play. I think same can be said for the russian BBs, unless you have absolutely no clue about broadside, then you are better off with other BBs.

Thats usually the problem with newer shiplines compared to old ones: New ship lines have inflated stats at first, because majority of the players are the better ones, since they have accumulated FreeXP to just get that ship right away without grinding through it. And ofc since they are good players, they will get good results + most people dont know how to counter that ship (or what attribute those ships have to begin with), which makes it easier. Stalingrad is really a prominent example for that, since people didnt expect BB-grade guns on a Cruiser, which can citadel even many BBs at longer ranges. So naturally, it inflates the stats until people learn to deal with it. 2nd, which is only problem on EU server, german ships are especially popular, since many people want to play "their own" ships (germans play german ships, americans play US ships). Germans make up for the biggest part in EU, because it has the highest population. And many of those players sticking to their nation often are below average players, and they would play that ship regardless of how bad it is/they perform. And how WG is balancing ships (according to their own words) is, that they look how equally skilled players perform with that ship in comparision to same type of ships. F.e. you take the best 10% players from TX BBs, and see, what kinda results they get with GK/Kremlin/and so on. Same for different levels of skill. Here, Neptune is a good example from what ive seen on WGs data once which they shared. Neptune is worst T9 Cruiser for the majority of players. Not really a surprise, it basicly has no armor and a gigantic citadel. But once you get to the top 20+% players, Neptune makes a HUGE leap forward and went to topspot in the end. Its not an easy ship to play, but it does offer utility. Atleast it did, nowadays it might not be as clear cut anymore, the data i saw was probably like 1,5 years ago, but its still a good example. How would you change a ship like that? Is it underperforming? For most players yes. But if you buff it, good players would make it OP. Ofc in my book, you should balance ships by the best players, because they will harvest the potential of it.

I think, being able to show broadside without risking insta deletion at closerange isnt a bad treat. I remember several times showing broadside with GK because i had to / could do it. Couldnt do it with a russian BB the same way...

Alltime stats are useless, better look at these: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html You can look at every week individually (or last 2 months).

WG: Removes ASW from CLs and puts them on BBs, probably needs to increase range for ASW to like 6km so BB can hit the Sub *problem solved*

So you want fun to trump balance? Where does it end tho... we have people complaining about how OP CVs are right now, because AA doesnt stop them. Which one is it? Obviously cant be both.

And probably 9/10 claim that because a certain streamers proclaims, 9/10 russian ships are OP, while not having played Kremlin themselves. When RN CLs got introduced, everyone cried how OP they were, shooting invisible from smoke without punishing. Took some time, people learned to shoot them in smoke, because they werent invincible in there. Russian BBs are strong, if you play THEIR game, bowtanking and shooting them. Thats what they want, and thats how they win games. If you kill their teammates, they will fall much faster afterwards. Not to mention, their "glorious" longrange dispersion is a bunch of horseshit, every BB can have a good RNG role, getting multiple citadels on a Cruiser at maxrange. Most of the time you wont have good hits tho. looking at last weeks stats, Kremlin seems to be going ever so close to the other TX BBs in WR. In damage its not first anymore (silver BBs, without the usual HE spamming suspect Conqueror which is always first). Meanwhile, Venezia is better compared to Kremlin in most stats actually: WR, damage, kills, survivability. As a freaking cruiser i might say. Ofc Venezia isnt OP, nono, has highest damage without even having HE to farm damage But people constantly say "Venezia is not OP"... sure thing. How do people expect WG to take them seriously, if they only want ships nerfed because they are russian? All other strong ships get outright ignored, even if stats show that they arent. Why should WG nerf ships because the community FEELS that they are too strong, while in reality its some kinda russophobia? Its giving them a perfect excuse to ignore you.

Thats only true if the CVs are windowlickers - which are most of them btw. A good CV player will kill the DD, and then the rest of the fleet. The only thing the team needs to do, is not die. Then again, they need to do that AND more if you wouldnt be in a CV. And what CVs lack in capping, they make up for in defending, or just outright killing the DD before he even gets to the cap.