Saltface

You are spot on.

Except the Enterprise (being a CV) the other three ships can be countered. You didn't mention the Kamikaze sisters or the Benham which are also countered yet they are also broken in my humble opinion. Could you get them when they were out? You could. Can you get them now? Yes. They are simply more expensive. LOL ... It is different to say that some ships are broken or OP or that they promote P2W mentality or or or and a very different thing to say that the game isn't played on an even play field. We can all get one way or another any ships we want.

The battlefield is even mate. ANYONE can get any ship they want. Just get the steel and get yourself a Stalingrad, or the Coal and get a Smol. Or research the line and get ANY ship you want. So the battlefield IS EVEN.

Two kinds of trouble: a. CV player is Good - DD is spotted and all concealment, attack setup, etc are negated. - DD is attacked by CV, result -> DD is crippled or sunk depending on DD player skill - DD is focus fired by all red ships and if not killed by the CV is almost certainly reduced to a minimum amount of HP or sunk by red team shooting at it; b. CV player is Bad - DD is spotted and all concealment, attack setup, etc are negated.(same as above) - DD is attacked by CV, result -> DD manages to receive minimal damage because CV player is bad - however, (same as above) DD is focus fired by all red ships and despite it is not killed by the CV is almost certainly reduced to a minimum amount of HP or sunk by red team shooting at it; As you can see it is not important if the CV player is good or bad. What is important is that the DD loses its most precious thing. No, No, No. Not its cherry. Its concealment. And this is irrespective of the quality of the CV player. Now, you might bring up the fact that you (as a skilled DD player) can avoid a CV attacking you and manage to sink said CV. Well, BRAVO...mon cher. But, mein kleiner liebling, this you can do in a 1 vs 1. I wonder how well you will survive if a few players of your caliber, or other esteemed gentlemen of the forum are in cruisers or DDs for that matter in shooting distance? Now, if your point was "DD players suck so CV or no CV they are going to sink fast" we can start another discussion. And, if you want to defend the position that DDs are just fine because unicum DD players can mitigate the CV influence...well then...lets balance the CVs on unicum CV players. I ll be just fine with that. Here I will bring in @El2aZeR (excuse the tag) that claims that the biggest mistake of the rework is that it has been balanced around the average player. That is my HO.

You are creating a straw man. What @DFens_666 was talking about is the interaction between DD vs CV and DD vs BB. He never discussed damage or quantified it. You then proceed to tell us that it was the DDs misplay and it was all the fault of the DD player. Well, you got your answer from the "horses mouth". The BEST CV player on our server (if not across servers) debunked your reasoning. And you continue to defend the only class you can play by presenting a false parallel to disqualify the OPs question of balance between CV and DD. As if these obvious fallacies of yours weren't enough you try to negate the obvious by establishing a ridiculous comparison based on your false parallel: The answer to your last question is "yes there is a problem with CVs" the rest of your post is an indication of cerebral cortex malfunction that leads to lack of reasoning or some sort of ulterior motivation to defend the only class you can play.

are you sure? Is this a "healthy" server? I would suggest that you do some research before you answer. Like...looking at the numbers successful games are doing... Source: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/dense_eu_week.html This is the EU server games per week 18-Jan-20 11-Jan-20 28-Dec-19 21-Dec-19 14-Dec-19 07-Dec-19 30-Nov-19 23-Nov-19 16-Nov-19 09-Nov-19 02-Nov-19 26-Oct-19 1 131,670 145,210 130,220 128,280 129,640 128,548 133,389 125,247 124,784 124,820 130,000 124,456 50 to 500 29,468 70,429 28,912 28,744 16,770 18,449 18,505 20,299 18,000 19,248 18,597 23,951 Bots 33 188 63 259 721 163 6 6 4 9 33 6 Total 161,171 215,827 159,195 157,283 147,131 147,160 151,900 145,552 142,788 144,077 148,630 148,413

@Gnirf

I call and raise you another 50

This !!

I wouldn't Kita can profit from IFHE where its a matter of taste on Harekaze and a waste on Kamikaze.

Why?

exactly what @ColonelPete said

So you are saying that "not considering" a fact is not assuming that the fact in non existent? Let me quote Plato for you QED

Oh yes you assumed something........ You clearly assumed that this player has one account and only one account. Assumptions my dear are the mother of all mistakes. And you also assume that @Bear_Necessities has only one account and hence only 12,637 battles. Assumptions assumptions.......mistakes, mistakes

This is my statement that you quoted. You replied (and made bold the "especially in high tiers") Which implies that players prefer to play DDs. Not only that, that players prefer to play DDs especially in high tiers. I clearly demonstrated that Players DO NOT prefer to play DDs, especially in high tiers in my previous post. However, you come back and totally twist the initial argument by stating that the absolute number of battles of DDs in high tiers is larger than the absolute number of battles of DDs of other tiers. The complete fallacy of your arguments saddens me. I will have no problem whatsoever to convince the mathematical community that 1,574,812 out of 6,789,459 battles is larger than 1,702,659 out of 6,837,777 battles. I 'll have a problem convincing you that your comments are out of place. So, let me put it to you in another way. We are talking cars and you pop up and talk horses. Go talk horses in the horse discussion. This is a car discussion.

And to mention the fallacy of your statement in statistical terms, just look at the number of battles in every tier. TX comes only second to TVIII with more than 9 million battles. Logically it would have more battles in numbers. That is why a percentage of how many people play a class (Edit: or percentage of Battles per Tier) is a far better metric in our case. I ll stop here as you clearly do not want to accept the hard facts. Logic will fail trying to convince you. So I will not lose any more time in treating the data. Numbers are there. Percentages are there. Readers have brains and they can make their own decisions.

I already answered this one. popularity /pɒpjʊˈlarəti/ noun the state or condition of being liked, admired, or supported by many people. Source: Merriam-Webster

The green graphs and the absolute battle numbers say that you need to reevaluate what you stated. Source: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/eu/ship_20191228.html Player Average for Ships [ at 2019/12/28 ] Svr.eu : 2019-4Q Data: As per attached Excel file (Sheet 1 contains raw data, Sheet 2 contains Pivot Table and Graphs) Graphs for easy Reference of our readers as shown here under Numbers for easy Reference of our readers as shown here under What do the Graphs show? They show that DDs are the least popular Class among Players and the least played Class. This is a FACT for all tiers 3 to 10. And if you want to discuss the bold part (When you quoted me) just look at graph No. 3. After TVI only TX spikes up a bit. And popularity has to do with how many of us players play DD. Edit: Corrected title of Graph 3 Number of Players TIER BB CA CV DD Grand Total I 139,193 139,193 II 5,145 189,228 109,608 303,981 III 119,523 203,677 105,438 428,638 IV 133,127 136,011 81,212 105,092 455,442 V 251,338 275,056 746 153,940 681,080 VI 267,357 320,793 66,203 197,421 851,774 VII 260,918 237,834 439 164,071 663,262 VIII 292,218 243,238 61,387 161,388 758,231 IX 168,310 137,673 116 98,140 404,239 X 163,584 221,456 19,448 116,716 521,204 Total Sum of Players 1,661,520 2,104,159 229,551 1,211,814 5,207,044 Number of Battles TIER BB CA CV DD Grand Total I 332,116 332,116 II 10,325 555,047 352,337 917,709 III 572,016 921,370 487,043 1,980,429 IV 849,811 816,585 710,269 725,083 3,101,748 V 1,973,970 2,166,857 24,881 1,123,717 5,289,425 VI 2,238,942 2,477,251 841,304 1,453,338 7,010,835 VII 2,760,533 2,430,735 23,379 1,574,812 6,789,459 VIII 3,934,592 2,682,492 881,450 1,922,985 9,421,519 IX 3,112,240 2,016,448 6,430 1,702,659 6,837,777 X 3,067,614 3,813,791 355,992 1,970,254 9,207,651 Total Sum of Battles 18,520,043 18,212,692 2,843,705 11,312,228 50,888,668 DATA.xlsx

What does the graph show? It shows that players play what they perceive as easy, viable and fun to play. You have to exclude T1 to T3 as they are introductory tiers. It comes to no surprise that playing a CV at T4 is fun (to the CV player). Isn't it obvious that the least populated class (DD, CA and BB) are destroyers? T9 DDs show an increase because some of the best (or broken) DDs in game are there. There can be no denial that players prefer NOT to play DD especially in high tiers. Why should they? Everything works against them.

@ForlornSailor, @Beastofwar The dare is is on the unfair side. one must not perform better than the other in order to show that the proposed build is viable and effective. Asking someone to perform better than 79% in order to prove a built is unreasonable. If that was the case you would instantly say that it is the ship and not the player. Which is not the case. No matter the built the player on the wheel is the decisive factor. I would suggest 1 point of WR and 5% over average Damage above server average over 100 battles would be enough performance to prove the viability of a built. I would reconsider if I was you my proposal. Proposing something that is unachievable cannot be considered a gentleman’s proposal.

@Beastofwar i claim your WR is in the mid 40s. Your damage below average. These conclusions are drawn from the tactical advice you so gracefully hand over. Prove me wrong and make a ridicule of me for being a big mouth. P.S. Do you know what baiting a radar is?

@Beastofwar first of all Happy New Year. And here ends the courteous part of my post. And to be very clear and frank I find your post not only erroneous and misleading but also toxic and disturbing. In whole I find it bad for the game and the forum. I ‘ll treat the toxic part first. You find the words “tank” and “concealment” conflicting and I notice that you see “enemies” and “cowards” in a game. Quite disturbing. It might have eluded your attention so I ll just point out,, If you haven’t noticed, that this is a game. So, where you see enemies you should be seeing players of the other team (that will most probably be on the same team with you a few games down the line - poor souls I will add) and where you see cowards and brave fighters you should be seeing players that have a conservative play style or an aggressive play style or simply players that play in a way that is good or bad. Indeed it is disturbing to notice that someone that is playing a game gets “a kick seeying (sic) enemies cower and run” before them. Please allow me to point out that you are not in the navy. You are just playing an arcade game with ships. Pixel ships. On this same subject of toxicity it is long time now that you show a great disregard to the metric that shows how well a player performs in playing the game. Performance Statistics. You know. It is what you took the time to hide from others. There is an Aesop’s myth about the fox that couldn’t reach the grapes that were hanging high. She just called them sour. Does that ring a bell? So, if your performance is bad because of the way you play the game, kindly refrain from using derogatory terms for the other players that perform well and stop calling anyone that plays better than you a stat padder. By extrapolating on your line of thought Federer and Nadal are stat-padders. I hate to break the bad news to you but they aren’t. They are damn good players. And when they find themselves on the opposite side of the net they are opponents not enemies. Lets see now the second part of our subject. The complete and utter nonsense of your technical approach in what concerns concealment and use of secondaries. Shall we? You disregard concealment and overrate secondaries in a thread concerning the Amagi. It wouldn’t be far fetched to believe that you would be talking off road tires in a discussion about formula one cars. It might come to a surprise to you that some ships in this game are designed as long distance snipers, others better perform on a flank and others as brawlers. I don’t think that anyone would object you if you brought up this subject in a thread about the Bismarck, the Massa or the FDG to name some ships that perform well in close range brawling. In this respect I can only question the why you chose to rage rant in this thread? Because obviously you went on a rage typing fest putting down nonsensical self contradicting statements to accuse everybody for being a coward and a stat-padder. You claim concelment is overrated because of CVs and you go on saying that it is useless because you can use islands to conceal yourself. But, the same CVs that make your concealment redundant love a BB behind an island as they can approach you from a sector that your AA doesn’t work and just strike you with relative impunity. Not only that, you are also useless as you can’t shoot at any other ship since said islands conceal you but also block your shots. Furthermore, those dreaded destroyers love static clumsy battleships behind islands. Lovely torpedo targets. You know “oops, where did that bugger come from? Oh! From behind the island that my secondaries could not shoot at”. Through points 1 to 9 you further claim that you strike citadel hits, you burn everybody else down, you deal a great amount of damage and all this as you valiantly charge the enemy and instill fear in their cowardly hearts while encouraging the cowards on your team to follow the charge of the light brigade. Utter nonsense. Especially the one that lights up the red CV which by the way has significantly better concealment than any BB. Not to mention that you claim you might survive till match late stage where you will eliminate the red players. How will you do that (if by divine intervention you survive the charge) with all your HP depleated during the brawling while the red team conserved their HP, eludes my poor intellect. The only thing you do is overextend, get focus fired at, and finally, lose your pixel ship fast, putting your team at a disadvantage. Quite a success I will say. So successful that the bright red ought to be hidden so not to blind the poor plebs. Amazingly, you jotted down everything that could and will go wrong. And you rejected it all. In a pure strike of genius. Just to elaborate, in point 1 you will burn down because you can’t conceal yourself adequately so that the red team doesn’t know you are coming. You have no concealment so they see you from the moon and no tank built so you are going to be burnt to a crisp from all the HE spamming cruisers that see a yummy BB overextending. You will be torpedoed because DD players do know how to hit their primary targets (overextended BBS) with nice torpedo spreads and kindly be reminded that a battleship has no hand break to pull and suddenly stop. Finally you will be focused fired at because you are a nice big juicy target with no support far ahead of any other ship in its team. A prime target. At this point naturally I have to raise the question. ACTUAL BRAINS in contrast to what? I admit that I couldn’t see this one coming from someone that camps with cruisers instead of providing the necessary support to his teammates playing destroyers. I think that most novice players will not benefit from losing their time reading the nonsensical toxic spew that you contribute to the forum nor the more seasoned players will have fun any more because it has become boring. I guess politely debunking this irationality that you babble is the only way we can help the novice players that are seeking advice on the forum and I can’t help not mentioning, once again, your toxic commentary that is so very negative and damaging to the game. As I can see that habits are second nature and you will not self correct and become a positive and constructive contributor to the forum I will not ask you to try to refrain from posting nonsensical stuff. However, I shall technically debunk your statements when wrong because novice players might be misslead and I shall politely point out all your toxicity and hatred for anyone that performs better than you. You are not an unrecognized genius. Should you be one, your performance would clearly point out to that. Back to being courteous I shall wish you a Happy New Year with health and happiness to you, your family and all your loved ones.

Best wishes to all

Oh, trust me I had tons of those and found out since test server their value on this one on one. And you don't care if you both die so long you are ahead in points.

Because it is impossible if the GZ player has the minimum amount of brain cells And what you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with if AA skills have any value or not. My reply was to @Sunleader concerning his fastest kill. And it was a LOL post because we all know that killing so fast isnt the norm. Its the straight outlier. Uhhmmm...continuous damage is continuous damage. You cant avoid it. But it is insignificant. This has been treated by other forumites, so I wont spam the obvious here. If you believe that investing in AA builds and AA skills is good for you, be my guest. You haven't convinced me. On the other hand excellent CV players that know what they are doing have convinced me of the waste it would be.