DFens_666

So because teamplay is none existent, we need every ship to deal with every possible situation? Thats not gonna work you know? You cant just take BBs then and make them less vulnerable to their counter. Can i demand buffs for Cruisers aswell, so that they dont get devstriked by a BB?

If you have a DD 6km away from you, you pretty much deserve to get torped. The way you describe DDs, they are not allowed to do anything. Also, DDs are supposed to be a Counter to BBs, thats why you are supposed to help your Cruisers, which in turn are supposed to kill off DDs for you.

Imo the issue is, that good BB players (those that know where to aim) wouldnt really need to push ahead anymore. Its basicly the issue with Slava, and people like Flamu playing it. They will wreck everything left and right, even angled / doging ships, just need the right moment to shoot. What would be better, is to improve most BBs close range dispersion. What ive witnessed when playing russian BBs compared to others is, that you can just delete Cruisers/DDs at will if you can get very close to them. There is nothing they can do, as long as you know where to aim. Other BBs simply fail at that, because there is still the probability that they miss half their shells, and then you die to torps. So pushing closer is too great of a risk when your guns cant perform every time. I feel like, playing midtier Cruisers is still manageable open water even if they are far more vulnerable compared to they hightier cousins. - Cruisers have less range - BBs have less range - BBs have more shotgun spread Its quite simply even: If you are on a flank on T5, you are reasonably safe from everything which isnt on your flank, while on hightiers, a BB can attempt to snipe you from 20+km and get multicits, while you are dodging the BBs on your flank. WG would just need to copy midtiers to hightiers, and it might work. But ofc they wont, because ships must get stronger with every tier

Why? You mean, if BBs actively manage to leave the map, they dont hang back anymore? Wouldnt that actually have the opposite effect? If i could reliably hit any target even better, why should i push ahead? The bigger problem is, armor/gamemechanics work against pushing closer, f.e. you get more overpens. Getting BBs closer to the caps because of some questionable buffs will make life for cruisers even harder, and quite frankly, its too bad enough already. Cruisers basicly get shafted by everything, no need to make it even worse.

SAP is always better, as long as you cant citadel the enemy or if AP can get pens while SAP would get shatters, because SAP deals more damage than AP. And its quit clear how much penetration SAP has, while AP penetrations depends at what distance you shoot at. - Against DDs: Use SAP - Against Cruisers: If you can citadel them, use AP, otherwise use SAP - I guess against BBs you can shoot 95% SAP. Alltho im not sure if Venezia can Citadel f.e. Yamato at close range. AP vs BBs is always situational, and depends if you can get penetrations. So AP gets more situational for Italian CAs, because it only beats SAP when SAP shatters (german BB upper belt armor f.e., but german BBs have juicy superstructure so...)

You dont need to be at range, you only need a BB without any actual Armor. And NM is one of those. NM has no armor except at the belt, every other place is free farm for HE/SAP.

Ive had several people camp center without any filth collcted, and all of them shoot those who collected some filth. Yep, 10/10 gamemode WG, not gonna bother with it anymore. Bad concept made worse by playerbase. It would be better in a division based PvE event, which would be purely grinding, but without the extra toxicity added because you can only hate the others.

Yeah 3 games played, i think ill call it quits. In 3 games, i got 1/3 of what i would need on average per day, to get the filth required for the rewards. Which means, average 9 games per day, roughly 3h every day for a month. THats worse than Benham, and Benham was a ship, not only a camo.

I dont see a problem

Well, the problem is, most people dont play such high amount with specific ships. 100 games lowers the impact of one game down to 1%, which is still quite large, but better than nothing. Ofc you can look at all ships, and it will still show the same picture, f.e. proships.ru changed it, and it basicly shows all the games i played in the year 2019, which are 714. And i dont think you will find such a player, who has >1k games in a ship with a 60% WR but is otherwise a 40% player. Theoratically it should be possible with T1 (maybe even T2) ships, but those players often dont play hightiers, so it wont show them as 40% players. Some people can play with lowest tier ships, and get 60% WR, but they fail miserably once they go past T4. https://wows-numbers.com/de/ranking/?order=battles__desc Look at those players, with more than tenthousand battles, and red WR. Do you see a ship with Unicum WR up there? No... With lowertier ships, its not red WR, but orange/yellow, occasionally maybe light green. But not much more. However, if you go below 100 games played, you can see Blue/purple WR. If those people would keep playing, they would eventually move towards 50% too (well, except those lowtier ships which they manage to somehow perform in) And sometimes, even 40% players might find a ship they can perform a bit better in than others, it even shows that if you look at those players. And then you still have to factor in the impact a ship has on the outcome of the game, where CVs/DDs are worth more than Cruisers/BBs. Failing hard in a midtier Cruiser over hundreds of battles is harder than doing it with a DD. If you play bad in a DD, your WR will be lower than if you play bad in a Cruiser.

Ofc it makes perfect sense, because you cant predict WHEN those matches will happen. Generally, ~100 games are a good indicator for a specific ships WR, as you have a decent sample size. If an overall 40% WR player has 60% WR in a ship, then he was just lucky with the teams in those few games. Basicly EVERY player has ships, which dont fit the overall WR of his account. Very good player have ships with bad WR, and bad players have ships with high WR. If both would play more battles in that ship, it would normalize. Or how would you explain that? Its the same ship, and i played both at the same time. Dmg & kills are basicly equal, while WR is not. I could play Hiei more often to buff my WR, and im sure it would happen on its own within the next 10-20 battles.

Fletcher is nice Meanwhile, Benham just doesnt work, because i have to do this with enemy DDs, while enemy BBs camp behind islands because they got crap in da pants!!

I would have tried that myself (maybe) if i would have played it more often

I love this one. Yep, probably nothing to do with the fact, that more players (especially more average players) are unlocking Kremlin, which would automatically lower the WR of every ship. Id not be surprised, if they would time "nerfs" accordingly, when a lot of people are advancing from Soyuz to Kremlin. Certainly they can see, how many people are currently grinding Soyuz.

Signal for not losing turrets and Tubes?

Who knows what "actively" means. Maybe they dont count in players/Clans, who play 1game/1day per season just to get a free captain reset.

Sure np with that. Im just thinking about the average playerbase here, and we should question the existence of certain mechanics, which is making the game more frustrating and which makes the average player rather yolo than continue to play. And then you have still the problem between turrets and torps. You can angle your turrets into incoming shots, and make them shatter/bounce on impact. You cant do the same for torptubes. A CV can strip 1 or more tubes permanently with one rocket strike... imagine this happens within the first 2 minutes of the game (not to mention, even incapacitating might force a new reload if the CV gets to you right away, which is also quite stupid). Just saying, i can understand why the average player would rather quit the game than to continue playing. Also i think, DDs are off far worse than BBs and their mainguns.

You shouldnt compare Randoms and CBs. While ships should be balanced for both, its quite a hard task with WG throwing Gimmicks left and right. Like Henri, which became basicly OP in CBs for the last few seasons when WG decided to give french Cruisers the MBRB. Had to push a Benham away, because our DD decided to not support me, because apparently im a selfish bastard. Taking Torps bow on doesnt really hurt that much.

I think the negative aspect outweighs the achievement, because losing a maingun (or even more so a torpedotube) feels worse than destroying one (if you know what i mean ) They could ofc prolong the time if you lose your turrent more than one time (or make disabling them more frequent, if you cant lose them), like 1. time 25 sec 2. time 50 secs and so on. While true, i can totaly understand people who would rather throw in the towel, because its too much effort to keep playing. Rather die and get to the next game.

First game in Fletcher, and such a tough one aswell If you have to kill 3 Gunboat DDs, 2 of which outgun you

Check the Citadel from Smolensk compared to Moskva. Or armor in general from those ships. Moskva can pretty comfortably bowtank even BBs without having the fear of getting punished too heavily. Smolensk cant. And Moskva has double the HP aswell. Im not disagreeing that Smolensk armor is a bit questionable, but if you nerf it too much, you need to give it more HP in return. And Smolensk is not the only issue, there are many others aswell.

DDs can beat Cruisers 1v1 too. Its mostly down to the playerskill. A noob in a Smolensk will not beat a better BB player 1v1. Vice versa, a very good Cruiser player can beat BBs aswell in most other Cruiers. CAs are often more vulnerable to BB AP, because they are bigger and have more armor. At the same time, HIndenburg can be (almost) immune to certain BB AP if angled properly. US CLs do have tiny citadels at the waterline aswell, yet noone complains about them I think we left that behind some time ago, way before Smolensk was added to the game. And can we stop this Smolensk bashing at some point, and look at other problems too? Either accnowledge all, or let it be. Gets pretty annoying

Oh yeah, 3 stooges going behind A (if the cap would be there) being useless the entire game. Sounds like average BBaby... I think BBs need some kinda mechanic which would make them more vulnerable if they stray away from their team (if rest of your team dies, restrictions gets removed), like not being able to spot or have a harder time spotting torps or something like that. This behavious NEEDS to be dealt with. BBs have to follow Cruisers/DDs, not the other way around.

On a different note, permanently losing Turrets/Tubes should not be a thing anymore. Its horrendously unfun and is unnecessary from a gameplay pov. Yes, disabling them is ok ofc, but not losing them. DDs can lose half their armament to rocket planes...

People often forget, that german BBs can operate closer without getting deleted so fast (they shatter more HE, they dont take citadels while broadsiding). Ofc they also get a little bit better hitrate because of that. My german BBs also have quite decent hitrate, Gneisenau is overall the best IIRC. Bismarck is also quite high. GK is a bit lower than the hightier competition, but damage output is still there. If you get rid of the Cruisers, you can quite comfortably push in, because enemy BBs cant do much and against DDs you have Hydro.