DFens_666

Why is the option "only nerfing after a period of 1 year or 2 years"? I think that would be the most horrible way of releasing OP ships and then nerf them a year later. Wouldnt the opposite approach make more sense? Lets say, WG is only allowed to balance premium ships in the first 3 months. After that, they are "safe" so to say. That way, everyone can choose to buy that ship right away and take a gamble if its OP, or just wait 3 months and buy it then. All in all id be happier, if WG would balance premium ships like normal ships tho. Ofc i have a different approach to this, since i dont spend money on wows, so i dont really feel the same way.

Games played / WR / survivability No, you dont need to die always to get a really bad WR Different persons, same WR, die much more often. Different playstyles can have same outcome, but if you change the distribution, suddenly one playstyle can become more "viable" so to speak. That first Fletcher is probably always running to A1, but if he is on my team, atleast he cant gift points to the enemy. Would his playstyle result in some losses? sure, but i assume one of the other suiciding Fletchers will cost more games, because they simply die. Btw incidently, that guy with 75% survivability even deals more damage than the other 2.

Either remove HE from BBs or atleast remove the fire starting capability. Thats one way to make them less appealing to the average player, because they cant just farm 100k damage from safety. Its simply horrible game design, that you can deal the most damage while putting yourself out of harms way entirely (CVs anyone?). At the same time, CV spotting needs to go so that ships can safely move closer without getting blasted to death halfway in the open, because CV is accidently spotting them on the way. That way, DDs and Cruisers will have an easier time playing around caps, and even a BB can move up better, as it only has to deal with the CV strikes, and not also getting farmed from 20km HE ThundeLELs. But yeah, thats just completely wishful thinking. The other problem with Cruisers is, that the average player is simply incapable of playing them properly. That wont change. At the same time, cruisers dont really perform badly for unicums, so buffing them would only make them stronger. But why not i suppose? Its not a problem with CVs, so why should it be a problem with Cruisers? Anyway, i think we are too far in the crap at this point to salvage it. There are too many ships and gimmicks to balance it and make Cruisers more appealing to the average person. The average player gains nothing from playing cruisers - he deals less damage than in a BB - he dies much faster than in a BB - if he chooses to stay safe in the back, he cant even shoot anymore Why should he pick a Cruiser instead of a BB? To have a miserable time? Was just checking the most played ships in the last month, from the first 14! spots, 12 are BBs, 2 are DDs (not surprisingly Shima and Halland) And on places 15-17 we have 3 Cruisers - which are all german. Again, not a surprise in that, since i assume its just germans interested in playing german ships (looking at NA, the most played Cruiser is Omaha... yep, its just prefering a certain nation) On place 24 we have Alaska - not a surprise either as its more of a BB than a Cruiser.

People can also have poor WR because they suicide after 3 minutes. So unless MM would know, how each person behaves, "balancing" them between teams is not really possible. F.e. a division of Unicums is often able to carry their team, if they just stay alive long enough. But if half your team suicides to get zero'd out, then noone can change that.

Also one reason i dont understand, why people buy permacamos. They are just bad till T8 and and best ok on T9. Id never use a standard permacamo if id use XP signals.

Maybe self-fulfilling prophecy using MMM? I think we need an anonymizer, so people dont know the WR from their teams or WR of a specific player so they can "focus that one Unicum"...

Ok so has nothing to do with switching ammo... weird crap. Wonder if that works every time or just sometimes? Sounds like a fun experience, like fighting a DD, doging his torps, incapacitating the tubes and then *bam* getting torped again... Might aswell tag the usual suspects now: @YabbaCoe @MrConway check the 2 videos.

My highest damage game so far. Well tbh, the map is a little bit "dumb" for general advice, as both sides are seperated from one another.

Yes please! Best mode ever! Can we also remove the entire UI to get a more realistic feeling? Increase secondary and maingun range to reallife values for more phun. To sweaten the deal, just give them whatever reward they want for atleast playing 1h at a time

Feels the other way around tho

Huh? Old CVs were much better in fighting BBs. CVs can harass/kill DDs and Cruisers much better than BBs. Subs cant even get to BBs without going through DDs and Cruisers first, so not sure how they are supposed to annoy BBs.

Definetely gets better on the hightiers against all-or-nothing armor schemes. Its the same with midtier italian CAs, who deal much less damage than on hightiers, because suddenly they get pens everywhere. Only up to T6. The T7 has 500 more SAP damage than AP, so you can just shoot SAP at DDs. But the difference is so small it doesnt matter either way. Certainly NOT swapping ammos to shoot a DD is the right way to go, just shoot whatever you have loaded.

And therein lies the problem with spreadshit: How could they ever tell that one of them is OP, while the other is not

To me it looks rather boring tbh... Biggest SAP in the game, but everything else seems to be on the meh side. Low HP, bad reload, doesnt have the smoke from other ita BBs... i guess it has better dispersion than the others tho thanks to better sigma. I guess if its able to consistently nuke everything with its SAP, then it has something going for it, but apart from that, i dont see anything which would make it worthwhile.

Im not saying that were none before. Im saying, that the ratio of decent players to leachers might be different, if there is a 1v1 brawl available. F.e. you have 900 decent players and 100 leachers. So every 10th player would just be leaching/griefing/yoloing whatever you wanna call it. Now we move 500 decent players into 1v1s, and we are left with 400 decent players and 100 leachers in randoms. Suddenly, 2 out of 10 players are leachers, which would mean, gaming experience is worse than it was before. I dont think that this is far fetched. People who are only interested in getting rewards/grinding with total disregard to teamplay or their own performance are not able to do this in 1v1s. They dont gain anything from playing like crap in 1v1s, because they dont get any rewards. However, they gain steel in ranked if they get carried by their team, so they will just maximize their time by dying as fast as they can to get the necessary wins. These people will always be playing ranked/randoms where they can get carried, and people who are interesting in playing properly might migrate into the 1v1 brawl we currently have.

Ofc it was OP back then, but since we have powercreep, this can change Or its only not OP when its a premium ship doing it

And if im adding a list of 100 ships plating, how will it help him? Noone could memorize this by just reading and then make a correct decision as he is playing the game. But he might remember "hey, my BB guns cant deal damage to T6 and T7 BBs unless they are broadside", thats only 2 things to remember. The first thing he needs to understand is the difference between penetration and overmatch. I dont even want to know the lengths a new player has to go in order to learn all this stuff these days... dozens of techtree lines, armor values all over the place, gun calibers.... learning this over years is not a problem. And if he wants to know more about overmatch, he can just ask. Maybe he isnt even interested in this - who knows.

Pommern is better in Coop (since you are a Coop player). Marco Polo has nothing bringing to the table for coop - Worse reload than pommern while having less guns - SAP is not necessay, you want to citadel Bots to get more damage faster, so AP is the ammo of choice Pommern has - Hydro good for pushing to spot the torps coming your way - Torps to kill enemy ships when you get close - Doesnt get citadelled (basicly), i assume Marco Polo can get citadelled if its broadside, and bots WILL hit your citadel if its possible - Better secondaries Marco Polo might be better in randoms, but even in other gamemodes (Brawls/ranked), Pommern is better... thats if you ever wanna try those.

Would seem kinda weird to me if they remove A-Hull if there are only 2 hulls available. Generally the next tier ship is always locked after the B-hull, so removing that wound be kinda odd... but who knows what WG is planning here. I can understand half of the list - namely those ships having 3 hulls currently. 3rd hull is often just XP/credit grab, which would not be bad if all ships would have it, but new ships often have only 2 modules to upgrade. So i can understand getting rid of those. Some others i dont really get, like Emile Bertin which only has B-Hull and Range-upgrade to unlock.

Yes

Eh, tbh, that case doesnt hold up (i agree that Kami is broken). Last 60 games i have 87% WR with it. I dont think, Marblehead has the same level of brokenness as Kamikaze But doesnt really matter, might aswell take the worst T5 ship and start clubbing some seals for high WR Well, maybe not Hawkins, thats really one huge piece of steaming crap!

They also removed C-Hulls from US DDs (the AA hulls) some time ago? Mahan, Farragut, they used to have C-hulls, and we only have B-Hulls now. Here is what i think will happen: Removal of: Mogami C-hull König C-Hull Ryujo C-hull Furu C-Hull Myoko C-hull Izumo C-hull Iowa C-hull OMaha C-hull Emile bertin <-- no idea here, it only has 2 upgrades? Can only be gun range tho... New York, New mex, Colorado <-- no idea either, maybe propulsion? NC <-- same as above Bayern <-- same as above Minsk <-- id guess torps Kiev <-- no idea, probably torps? I hope they dont nerf the torps to 4km... Ognevoi <-- id guess gun upgrade Tashkent <-- same as Ognevoi, guns probably Udaloi <-- i think torps Fletcher <-- torps too i think

I thought that means that they remove the B or C hull and combine them into one? Havent they done this before? If you look at the older lines, they used to have upgrades on guns, hull, range and propulsion. New lines often only have 2 upgrades, thus making old lines inferior considering amount of grind or freeXP to have them fully upgraded.

yeah they nerfed the dispersion

A truely balanced ship Its almost like it got soviet treatment