Aragathor

Looked at the mission descriptions and you're right, the steel missions lack the "or higher" league addition. Which means that it is possible to lose out on steel if you aren't playing from the start in the alpha team.

Looking at what WG employees are saying, is like looking at someone caught up in their own lies. You just can't do anything but shake your head in disbelief.

Yeah, the ship would've been more fun balanced on T6.

An additional clarification of the CV MM by Sub_Octavian:

It's ok, nothing breathtaking. It's a typical supernatural romance/comedy with wacky characters.

I have a yolo secondary captain on my Gascan, hilarious ship, plus the captain doubles as my JB/second Repu captain. The ship is good, but a bit fragile, but so are all french BBs. Vanguard? Never felt the desire to buy it. All of the Vanguards I saw in battle haven't really left a good impression.

The genius behind WG is that they'd rather lose a customer than keep a customer. -No tutorial, no desire to create one. -Quickly throwing new players into a MM spread where more experienced players make mincemeat of the new guys. -Mass production of gimmicky premiums, instead of introducing balanced ones (Exeter is the latest example). -Ignoring feedback from players. In WG Russia, game plays you.

Then why aren't they listening to the playerbase? When they players tell them that certain ships are boring and don't have a place in the meta, especially premium ships, they say "stats are fine". The problem with this approach is that only the players fanatical about a ship keep playing it when it gets bad, so the stats may be well tilted to create a false impression. The same goes for ship models, they put incredible detail into new ones, but have no time to update the old ones. So you have ships looking good beside ships that look like potato carvings. And that makes for a bad game.

I said it elsewhere and I will say it here, this doesn't add up. If they have such improved tools to pinpoint and identify performance issues, then why are they balancing things with a sledgehammer? The YY nerf was massive, which shouldn't be necessary. They keep saying Blyskawica is alright, while people keep telling them the ship is boring and inferior to Leningrad, with public stats proving the players right. I don't believe them, either their tools aren't as good as advertised or their personnel handling them is not competent enough. Or they are straight up lying, which is also a possibility.

There is a nasty bug going around that makes shells fall short of the target... https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/115475-has-anybody-else-had-shells-falling-short/

If they are like those on the Aigle? Slow turret traverse and the shells feel slow too.

I like the Khabarovsk. Being the turn and burn ship suits my taste, but without a heal it would perform poorly in my hands. Well, the Le Terrible doesn't have one, so if she's any indication the first iteration will be tested without one. Maybe like the Brits they will get one at T9-10, but that would just mean that people will have to suffer through 7 tiers of suck. I'll wait and see, but right now I'm not excited. Anyway, the line will come at the end of the year so this right now is all speculation.

Looking at how much the Terrible is played I can already see this line being dead on arrival. With no smoke and no heal the ships have no exit strategy, so you are either a super unicum zooming around or dead, no middle ground for average joes. I see a lot of changes during testing and an end result of a make-believe line with characteristics completely different from the real life ships. And on a lark, here are the numbers for Terrible last week:

According to Sub they are looking at the Legendary Module and not the ship, because "we feel it contributes to her status a lot". As someone who has played CBs up to Typhoon I must say I haven't seen any HIV's with the LM, so I don't get where they are getting this. Am I missing something? Did the KOTS teams use only LM HIVs? You also forgot to mention the hard no to implementing a tutorial.

Saw that post of his. And I'm wondering, if their tools are so great and better detailed, then why are they so bad at balancing? With data beyond our ability to see, they should be able to pinpoint issues and correct them, without resorting to heavy handed nerfs. And yet here we are, with YueYang being the least played T10 DD after Daring and having the second worst WR after Z-52. Something doesn't add up.

Which numbers? Those on maplesyrup say a different story. Last week she had the worst winrate, worst avg. XP, 4th lowest damage, 3rd lowest k/d ratio, all compared to T7 DDs. The pan-european tree isn't even on the horizon, so it means that the ship will remain garbage for the time being.

It is clear from the answers that they are not playing their own game and they will never listen to feedback. They have been told time and time again, supported by proof, that Blyska is in a bad place. Their constant answer "sHe'S fInE".

Sure, it was the players that wrote the mission, it was the players that limited it to a week, it was the players and not WG. I'm disgusted by shills like you.

Looking at the last stage I realize that WG doesn't want to promote good sportsmanship, team play, or even human decency. What they want is a game filled with egoists that behave in the most rear ended way.

Nicholas is a 1919 design study for an enlarged Clemson based destroyer leader.

Let's not forget the fabulous LWM review of the boats:

Did you try to torp her in your sleep?

The most likely of answers.

I am done with this idiotic first stage. I want to strangle the person who thought this was balanced and acceptable. I also find that properly played the Gallant is a really good boat that can solo T7 BBs with ease while gunboating.

WG is far too busy making new premium ships to be bothered with things like these. You'll be lucky to get a worthless "it was passed on for consideration" or a mocking "soon".