ForlornSailor

You know you need to dodge flak...

True. But two things: A) im actually amazed, how its now pretty much common and accepted to spread wrong infos in the forum. B) He made a very nice column for "safe zone of planes" - which is heavily influenced by this small error in numbers. And he made a very long post around the conclusion about that. And checking a few more numbers, it seems like 50/50. Algerie seems right. Minotaur isnt, Chapa isnt, Henri isnt, Moskva is correct again.

Dont try to make a living as a fortune teller. All your clients will bang your door for a refund.

My f.... god. Just checked ingame. Ofc he used fantasy values from his calculator. My god the level of the forum is declining at a fast pace. @All - A LOT OF THE NUMBERS IN THE OP ARE WRONG - The air detectability is higher! @Fubucky correct the table. A lot of the numbers are wrong.

Yep, that is true. Even before the rework, I was thinking at times: Its not the BB that should have the damage reduction for torpedos - its the DDs and to some degree the cruisers. Like... I remember once taking 2 torps with my edinburgh very early in the game (they were not meant for me) and I was at 1k health. The game was over. Now If I were a Yamato... I would hardly care. A DD would have been dead. So if they would go round the other way, they could scale the alpha damage much better. Imagine a torp doing 3k dmg on a DD, 8k on a cruiser and 15k on a BB (just to get an idea on the scaling, actual numbers are subject to change, because if I dont add that, someone will come an say WOOOT thats not enough damage you have no idea you dont even play DD/CL/CA/BB/DDs !!11). To put it into perspective: we have this kind of mechanic already in place. DDs have no cita - they used to have them - and BB AP dmg on DDs is capped. So there is no reason from that perspective to limit the damage taken from other classes. (holy s*** now I will really get it, if the right persons read that "LOOK! the CV-hater is back! He wants to buff his OP-DDs even more!!11) Ofc you need to take into account, that its easier to hit a BB with torps then a DD. It would be equally stupid if you need 7 torp hit to sink a DD and a Yamato would already go down after 5 or so. Im expecting it will step up with the next patch. It doesnt say anywhere but logic does imply, that torp hits on the bow/aft section will result in a higher rate of floodings. It would make sense and Id really wish, WG would tell us if that is so and what the coefficient is. If we dont know these numbers and know, if something changes, we will see a lot of talk in the forums again. I predict both kind of topics: "REDUCE FLOODING CHANCE: MY BB HAS NO CHANCE" and "I HIT 250 TORPS AND GOT 0 FLOODINGS".

Right now, people are pretty upset about the recent changes. Ive seen comments aswell, that Ive never expected that person to make. I think, some forumites feel the same about my comments. Bottomline: Dont take the talk too serious right now. There are calmer waters ahead. As above. Dont let the negative comments get to you. Everyone has a right to voice his opinion. People are freakin out right now about small things. Its good to have an opinion and voice it.

Detected.

But yea, something needs to be done. WG doesnt want +/- 1 mm. AA and CVs are too different, especially in the ranges T5 to T8 and T6 to T10. This goes for CVs aswell as for any surface ship. Check the greatest gaming achievements thread and you see, what a T8 CV in T6 mm can do. I dont know. For the moment, there is not much we can do I think. Guess we need to start to learn chinese then. Im already on it myself. 你好同志 ! See ? I like green tea anyway more then coffee Im in favour of a dynamic mechanic, that adjusts planes and/or AA accoring to the current matchmaking. I know this sort of opens pandoras box, since everyone could ask for a similar mechanic for their favourite class/ship but it doesnt get us anywhere. The way I see it, this linear method, that WG used to upscale AA/Plane HP/Plane speed/etc. is either too steep or just wrong in itself. I know, thats how the game is build and they are influenced by historical values but sometimes this doesnt make for a great gaming experiance. Imagine such a linear, steep table would be used for concealment. Like a T6 DD has a concealment of 10 km while T8 cruisers have also 10 km and T8 DDs are at 8 km. Its very hard to throw a "you need to adjust" card at a T6 DD player, when he asks, what he should do in such a game, right?

Ramming with the auto-pilot might be a whole new challenge. Be sure to make some screens or a video when you succeed

Not a bad idea actually.

我喜歡實時戰略航空母艦

You couldnt be more wrong. Everbody using Radar is complying with the rules of the game. Radar is a standard method, belonging to normal gameplay. Radar is not provided by a third-party-program. It is intended by the developer to see ships, that are hiding in smoke, hiding behind an island or are concealed by any other means. Conclusion: "Just because one is put into the game by the devs and has a time limit doesnt make it less of a cheat." You are completly wrong. Radar is the very definition of NOT being a cheat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_video_games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_online_games

Im pretty sure you dont have the definition of "cheat" right.

This. IMO as long as there are direct changes to mechanics and/or balancing on a broad-scale (as in every ships AA gets changed), we should have free respec active all the time.

@xxNihilanxx the thing is: what he wrote, isnt an Analogy. Because an Analogy doesnt change the narrative. An analogy is pointing out undisputable similarities between two things. To bring an easy example "what gills are for fishes are lungs for mammals". So before telling me about semantics rather look at his complete false claims. I wasnt wrong and even IF (that an IF!) it wouldnt make your non-sense any more true. Ad hominem.

Yea I know. That is actually so ridiculous, that I refuse to reply to it

FIFY

Not really. The problem with Analogys - some call them strawmens - is, that you are bending the picture to change the narrative, so that it gives more weight to your position. Thats why its not an honest approach in a discussion. We all know what happened with CVs, we dont need anymore "imagine my CV is a car"-analogies.

The problem with strawman-arguments is, that they are made to fit ones narrative and agenda. Ill change it a bit: If you bought a sack of potatos, went home, ate them, then went to the toilet the next day... do you pick up the "results", put them back in the bag, go to the store, smash it on the counter and say "yo wtf? my potatos turned into s$$$ - gimme my money back!".

Another fake-story . Can you actually stick to facts? Its funny that you DEMAND screens from other people as a proof of common known things, yet YOU dont post any screens, but instead spill out your claims (lies) as facts. holy....

Stop spreading lies. Its a l2p issue if you cant make CVs work in Operations right now. Especially when we have a weekly operation, that is full of T3 ships without AA!

Either that or a better reload. It really looks underwhelming like this, especially at T9.

Just checked: Not for me.

Famous last words ;)