Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
mirceasml

Tier 10 has absolutely no fun anymore

69 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[DACRO]
Players
22 posts
12,046 battles

I'd like to open the topic saying some things about myself, which , hopefully would put some weight behind the things I'm about to say.

I'm playing WOWS since its launch, and i have played all the kind of ships. I have a decent number of battles. I have a decent WR and rating. I have played both, premium and non premium. I have followed WG rules and not followed, been banned lately a number of times mostly for swearing in a public channel. Frustration starts to pile up, and I'll get into details. 

Please, those reading the subject express your frustration in the topic i have just opened. 

WHY: this is A GAME. WarGaming MUST remember this. A game is supposed to entertain, relax, make people forget, make the people playing it HAVE FUN. Yes WG, we are playing it to have fun, not to be full of frustration and be nervous as hell when we shut the PC off. You WG, forgot the fun factor. I'm not taking any bull-crap regarding "fun is a personal matter and each and everyone has fun in a different way".

And now, let's get to tier 10, where most of my frustration is connected to. If everyone would look into my stats , would notice, that all tiers, 1-9 im faring pretty well. I can claim even that one on one, im not afraid of anyone and i'd face anyone with reasonable chances of winning. I'd face anyone in supposedly weaker ships and still win. This is not valid anymore on tier 10.

So, what is going on at tier 10?

Well ill put it straight and sharp: WG money greed. 

WG, in its greed to get people hooked into the game and paying for the premium item, has made tier 10 the epitome of category imbalances. The tier 10 hase become the most painful tier to play.Yes...play...painful!!?? 

WG, are we playing because we are masochistic? No, we'd like to have fun, to play ships that have strengths, weaknesses, ships that have a chance , a fighting chance at least in A ONE ON ONE. Not talking about team play. Team play is crap, and most of players do not understand or care about team play, they want credits or experience, and only for themselves.

SO, at least give us ships that have not only weaknesses when its about one on one, but also strengths!

How many times have you trashed your keyboard when you were in a bb or a dd alone and having been attacked most of the game by a CV? How many times you felt like smashing your monitor when youre just being farmed by a Smolensk that you cant shoot, touch or even citadel because well, WG decided that that ship must be untouchable?

How many times you felt like going nuts when a single shell lobbed from behind an island by a cruiser that just gets damage sitting and shooting leisurely all the game puts you on fire again after being burned for 80% of your health? EH?

The game meta especially in tier 10 now in my opinion its totally fucked. Yes WG, you fucked us in T10. We have BB that are ponderous and unmanoeuverable, most of them suffer with accuracy (when historically, the BBS were THE MOST ACCURATE SHIPS AT ANY DISTANCE!), that burn like theyre impregnates with gasoline...solud i go on? Oh and one of the things that make me go crazy...Midway attacks Conqueror multiple times, doing 15k damage with rockets each time, or torpedoes hitting for mutiple floods (no crap WG, 5 in rocket would NEVER have , in real life done this kind of damage to a heavily armored battleships). This while Conqueror shoots down all in all 6 planes. Thats what is called heavy imbalance and CV has all aces vs a BB. 

Should I go on?

Please, anyone reading this thread write your perceived imbalances that make tier 10 so crap now.

 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,191 posts
14,917 battles
  • accuracy is not an issue in game, especially compared to realistic accuracy, especially at Tier X
  • fire is not an issue in game, especially at Tier X
  • CV can be an issue, but that applies to all Tiers
  • rocket attacks are hardly an issue on BB (would like so see a screenshot that says otherwise)
  • a Smolensk on the enemy team increases your teams chance to win on average (yes, there are some players who know how to play her, but most do not)

I do not see any issues relating to Tier X. And I thought you would write about player quality (which is also no issue exclusive to Tier X).

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,631 posts
10,280 battles

Sniff sniff. I smell a BBaby. 

16 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

when historically, the BBS were THE MOST ACCURATE SHIPS AT ANY DISTANCE!)

Historically bbs got raped by cvs without ever seeing them. 

Besides bbs had way more range than any other ship type. 

17 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

no crap WG, 5 in rocket would NEVER have , in real life done this kind of damage to a heavily armored battleships

Realism? Aye lmao, this is an arcade game my friend. 

18 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

Thats what is called heavy imbalance and CV has all aces vs a BB

CVs hold aces against any shiptype except their own. This always has been and always will be. If you can't deal with it, just quit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DACRO]
Players
22 posts
12,046 battles
2 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Sniff sniff. I smell a BBaby. 

Historically bbs got raped by cvs without ever seeing them. 

Besides bbs had way more range than any other ship type. 

Realism? Aye lmao, this is an arcade game my friend. 

CVs hold aces against any shiptype except their own. This always has been and always will be. If you can't deal with it, just quit. 

BBaby. Right , you're trying to be sarcastic/funny/patronizing.

Historically BB after 1943 were shooting planes and it took multiple carrier wings attacks to cause meaningful damage. Yes, the carrier replaced the BB as the capital ship. But the BB's were shooting  a lot of planes which in the game it's not happening. And im referring especially to 10 BBs, which were supposed to be last design in BB design, with an awful lot of AA mounts, radar, sonar and everything you want. Not like in the game.

Yes it's arcade mate. But i quote WG " realistic experience, historical ships". Never WG says arcade.

Yes CV held an awful lot of aces, but that didnt meant  ALL and dd and all others wer close to helpless. 

Before replying in a scornful way, think (if you can): "game balance" "All players enjoyment"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,191 posts
14,917 battles
3 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

But the BB's were shooting  a lot of planes which in the game it's not happening.

The US lost 10 planes to AA when sinking Yamato vs the AA of Yamato, a CL and 10 DD...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DACRO]
Players
22 posts
12,046 battles
11 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:
  • accuracy is not an issue in game, especially compared to realistic accuracy, especially at Tier X
  • fire is not an issue in game, especially at Tier X
  • CV can be an issue, but that applies to all Tiers
  • rocket attacks are hardly an issue on BB (would like so see a screenshot that says otherwise)
  • a Smolensk on the enemy team increases your teams chance to win on average (yes, there are some players who know how to play her, but most do not)

I do not see any issues relating to Tier X. And I thought you would write about player quality (which is also no issue exclusive to Tier X).

Mate, i tend to totally disagree with you. Accuracy not an issue? Are you for real? Think please again, and please explain your statements

Accuracy not an issue. Yes mate, it is an important issue.

Fire not an issue: please give me examples of war time ships that sank due to fires only. Here you just kill ships with he and fires. That didn't happened since Battle of Sinop, in the era of wooden ships and Paixhans shells.

CV modelling and implementation is very acute felt at tier 10. Don't tone it down.

Rocket attacks: If you don't believe, i'm waiting for you in a training room, ill privede the bb and make a few practice runs while i'll do anything i can to avoid the attacks and then draw the conclusion. I can assure you, am not a slouch.

Smolensk is a badly implemented ships, it has so many things going for it that i fell like shooting it even when in my team> i just hate it.

You say you see no issue at tier 10. Well, think again. Im waiting for a constructive debate, not a "my [edited] is bigger" thing. Cheers!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
[TTT]
Players
1,573 posts
13,742 battles
9 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

Historically BB after 1943 were shooting planes and it took multiple carrier wings attacks to cause meaningful damage. Yes, the carrier replaced the BB as the capital ship. But the BB's were shooting  a lot of planes which in the game it's not happening. And im referring especially to 10 BBs, which were supposed to be last design in BB design, with an awful lot of AA mounts, radar, sonar and everything you want. Not like in the game.

Let us ask Yamato about this shall we? 

 

 

 

yesMULTIPLE.thumb.png.44dad9940d832fcea6a5e66ab695d1b4.png

 

 

 

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DACRO]
Players
22 posts
12,046 battles
3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

The US lost 10 planes to AA when sinking Yamato vs the AA of Yamato, a CL and 10 DD...

True. While being attacked by roughly 110 planes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DACRO]
Players
22 posts
12,046 battles
1 minute ago, DasTongle said:

Let us ask Yamato about this shall we? 

 

 

 

yesMULTIPLE.thumb.png.44dad9940d832fcea6a5e66ab695d1b4.png

 

 

 

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 

True. Put into play other airplanes vs battleships, after 1943 please. It was a different story. Tier 10 bb's( and i dont want to liimit the discussion to bbs to) were designs looking to implement the lessons learned after 1943, especially about AA. Which means they should be more effective in an AA engagement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,096 posts
9,488 battles
Just now, mirceasml said:

True. While being attacked by roughly 110 planes. 

 

So you wanna be attacked by 110 planes in game so you can shoot down 10? Where is the difference, except scaling up the numbers?

 

12 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

Before replying in a scornful way, think (if you can): "game balance" "All players enjoyment"

 

I dont think Cruisers enjoy being devstruck by BBs from across the map either... BBs are already on the easy side, no need to make it even easier than that.

BBs overall deal best with CVs because

- They have the best AA

- The have the most HP

- Best torp protection

- Most repair parties

- Hardest to citadel.

Rockets can even take 10k from a DD, which only has 20k HP. You wanna lose 50k HP in your BB from a CV attack to lose similar amount of HP? While the DD doesnt even have a heal...

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,191 posts
14,917 battles
3 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

Mate, i tend to totally disagree with you. Accuracy not an issue? Are you for real? Think please again, and please explain your statements

Accuracy not an issue. Yes mate, it is an important issue.

Fire not an issue: please give me examples of war time ships that sank due to fires only. Here you just kill ships with he and fires. That didn't happened since Battle of Sinop, in the era of wooden ships and Paixhans shells.

CV modelling and implementation is very acute felt at tier 10. Don't tone it down.

Rocket attacks: If you don't believe, i'm waiting for you in a training room, ill privede the bb and make a few practice runs while i'll do anything i can to avoid the attacks and then draw the conclusion. I can assure you, am not a slouch.

Smolensk is a badly implemented ships, it has so many things going for it that i fell like shooting it even when in my team> i just hate it.

You say you see no issue at tier 10. Well, think again. Im waiting for a constructive debate, not a "my [edited] is bigger" thing. Cheers!

  • Tier X ships are more accurate than ships on lower Tiers
  • a lot of CV burned down during WW2, even recently the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) burned for 5 days, while in port, on open sea she would have been lost
  • screenshots of the damage taken are enough for me
  • does not matter how you feel about Smol, it only matters how she performs, and she does that badly
  • you have not explained how these issues are issue and how they are exlcusive to Tier X
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,191 posts
14,917 battles
5 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

True. Put into play other airplanes vs battleships, after 1943 please. It was a different story. Tier 10 bb's( and i dont want to liimit the discussion to bbs to) were designs looking to implement the lessons learned after 1943, especially about AA. Which means they should be more effective in an AA engagement.

There are no other Tier X BB that were ever attacked by planes during WW2, because the other BB did not exist...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DACRO]
Players
22 posts
12,046 battles
Just now, ColonelPete said:

There are no other Tier X BB that were ever attacked by planes during WW2, because the other BB did not exist...

So weren't Tier X CV's like Audacious, Hakuryu (really? I believe japanese navy buffs are laughing their pants off with this name). The only one real i believe was Midway, which has a configuration and airplanes especially post WW2. Ok, unreal ships versus paper ships. I can take that. But please, look carefully at what I'm saying, we have post ww2 airplanes and configuration vs  tier x ships that have Mid ww2 aa configuration. Except a very few ships, most of tier x ships (designed with ww2 lessons in mind) in the game do not have the AA that incorporate the lessons learned in this respect 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DACRO]
Players
22 posts
12,046 battles
8 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:
  • Tier X ships are more accurate than ships on lower Tiers
  • a lot of CV burned down during WW2, even recently the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) burned for 5 days, while in port, on open sea she would have been lost
  • screenshots of the damage taken are enough for me
  • does not matter how you feel about Smol, it only matters how she performs, and she does that badly
  • you have not explained how these issues are issue and how they are exlcusive to Tier X

There were a few, not so many CV that were attacked, during ww2, burned and did not sank. Mind you especially the british CVs, that had armoured decks. Yes...they bring armor in play. Extrapolate that to ships that have more armor to bring to the table. Even a cruiser has more armor that those british cvs. And still in game they burn and sink.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
[TTT]
Players
1,573 posts
13,742 battles
1 minute ago, mirceasml said:

True. Put into play other airplanes vs battleships, after 1943 please. It was a different story. Tier 10 bb's( and i dont want to liimit the discussion to bbs to) were designs looking to implement the lessons learned after 1943, especially about AA. Which means they should be more effective in an AA engagement.

Please realise the Date: 7th April 1945

So we talk Yamato in her final upgrade best posible AA Defence.

Anyhow that is not the point there.

I think you do not remember the carriers of old that decided that if you have to be oblitterated you are dead, PERIOD. Now you get moslest whole game that is much better whilst much more annoying.

1 minute ago, mirceasml said:

So weren't Tier X CV's like Audacious, Hakuryu (really? I believe japanese navy buffs are laughing their pants off with this name). The only one real i believe was Midway, which has a configuration and airplanes especially post WW2. Ok, unreal ships versus paper ships. I can take that. But please, look carefully at what I'm saying, we have post ww2 airplanes and configuration vs  tier x ships that have Mid ww2 aa configuration. Except a very few ships, most of tier x ships (designed with ww2 lessons in mind) in the game do not have the AA that incorporate the lessons learned in this respect 

You don't want midway in her launch configuration , just saying, i still remember a time where she came with Jetplanes.

 

And honestly all your argumentation is not really helping as you wish to prefer one or several ships over the others on the tier, sure CVs are annoying and one can argue a little out of place with their current concept but beyond that. A Smolensk can be dev struck, you also outrange her in most cases and her fire chance is not that much of a problem if you are not a camping stationary target.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OCTO]
Players
72 posts
4,953 battles

I agree that tier 10 isn't fun, but not so much from BBs being weak or HE spam.  The coordination required or lack thereof is the huge elephant in the room.  Even CW blowouts are often more fun than T10 Randoms, since it usually comes down to which team has the players that are immediately going to give up map control at lights out on the countdown.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-GG-]
[-GG-]
Players
365 posts
20,744 battles
55 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

I'd like to open the topic saying some things about myself, which , hopefully would put some weight behind the things I'm about to say.

I'm playing WOWS since its launch, and i have played all the kind of ships. I have a decent number of battles. I have a decent WR and rating. I have played both, premium and non premium. I have followed WG rules and not followed, been banned lately a number of times mostly for swearing in a public channel. Frustration starts to pile up, and I'll get into details. 

Please, those reading the subject express your frustration in the topic i have just opened. 

WHY: this is A GAME. WarGaming MUST remember this. A game is supposed to entertain, relax, make people forget, make the people playing it HAVE FUN. Yes WG, we are playing it to have fun, not to be full of frustration and be nervous as hell when we shut the PC off. You WG, forgot the fun factor. I'm not taking any bull-crap regarding "fun is a personal matter and each and everyone has fun in a different way".

And now, let's get to tier 10, where most of my frustration is connected to. If everyone would look into my stats , would notice, that all tiers, 1-9 im faring pretty well. I can claim even that one on one, im not afraid of anyone and i'd face anyone with reasonable chances of winning. I'd face anyone in supposedly weaker ships and still win. This is not valid anymore on tier 10.

So, what is going on at tier 10?

Well ill put it straight and sharp: WG money greed. 

WG, in its greed to get people hooked into the game and paying for the premium item, has made tier 10 the epitome of category imbalances. The tier 10 hase become the most painful tier to play.Yes...play...painful!!?? 

WG, are we playing because we are masochistic? No, we'd like to have fun, to play ships that have strengths, weaknesses, ships that have a chance , a fighting chance at least in A ONE ON ONE. Not talking about team play. Team play is crap, and most of players do not understand or care about team play, they want credits or experience, and only for themselves.

SO, at least give us ships that have not only weaknesses when its about one on one, but also strengths!

How many times have you trashed your keyboard when you were in a bb or a dd alone and having been attacked most of the game by a CV? How many times you felt like smashing your monitor when youre just being farmed by a Smolensk that you cant shoot, touch or even citadel because well, WG decided that that ship must be untouchable?

How many times you felt like going nuts when a single shell lobbed from behind an island by a cruiser that just gets damage sitting and shooting leisurely all the game puts you on fire again after being burned for 80% of your health? EH?

The game meta especially in tier 10 now in my opinion its totally fucked. Yes WG, you fucked us in T10. We have BB that are ponderous and unmanoeuverable, most of them suffer with accuracy (when historically, the BBS were THE MOST ACCURATE SHIPS AT ANY DISTANCE!), that burn like theyre impregnates with gasoline...solud i go on? Oh and one of the things that make me go crazy...Midway attacks Conqueror multiple times, doing 15k damage with rockets each time, or torpedoes hitting for mutiple floods (no crap WG, 5 in rocket would NEVER have , in real life done this kind of damage to a heavily armored battleships). This while Conqueror shoots down all in all 6 planes. Thats what is called heavy imbalance and CV has all aces vs a BB. 

Should I go on?

Please, anyone reading this thread write your perceived imbalances that make tier 10 so crap now.

 

 

So YOU are either:

 

- a smoke AP/HE spammer that got blind-fired and nuked by BB

- a BB that parked bow-on in one place for whole game and got raped by some DD

- a DD that overextended and got caught by some AP/HE spammer.

 

It's perfectly fine. You just need more practice to get around with WoWs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
48 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

WHY: this is A GAME. WarGaming MUST remember this.

I feel like WG isn't the only one that has to remember this is a game, it has to have some balance.

47 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

How many times you felt like going nuts when a single shell lobbed from behind an island by a cruiser that just gets damage sitting and shooting leisurely all the game puts you on fire again after being burned for 80% of your health? EH?

The game meta especially in tier 10 now in my opinion its totally fucked. Yes WG, you fucked us in T10. We have BB that are ponderous and unmanoeuverable, most of them suffer with accuracy (when historically, the BBS were THE MOST ACCURATE SHIPS AT ANY DISTANCE!), that burn like theyre impregnates with gasoline...solud i go on? Oh and one of the things that make me go crazy...Midway attacks Conqueror multiple times, doing 15k damage with rockets each time, or torpedoes hitting for mutiple floods (no crap WG, 5 in rocket would NEVER have , in real life done this kind of damage to a heavily armored battleships). This while Conqueror shoots down all in all 6 planes. Thats what is called heavy imbalance and CV has all aces vs a BB. 

Maybe a T10 DD should have a fighting chance against a T10 BB and not just get absolutely demolished as would be the case IRL because a BB is just a way better (and more expensive) gun platform? IRL, something like a Des Moines would have no place fighting a Montana, because it'd just get utterly demolished. So can you please heed your own advice and not be whiny about BBs having drawbacks to bring them in line? It's not like BBs are suffering either, there's a reason the MM queue is predominantly BBs most of the time, BBs still do on average the most damage and survive the most, despite having worse dpm.

 

Also, contrary to popular belief, a BB is as likely to be set on fire as any other class. It just burns twice as long, which against something like Smolensk doesn't matter, because if you are under sustained fire, you get set on fire again just as you put it out, so fire duration is pointless. But BBs have the same fire resistance and same amount of potential fires on their ship as any other class, though they are on 80% of the tiers the sole class where it is standard that every member of the class gets a repair party.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,191 posts
14,917 battles
4 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

Except a very few ships, most of tier x ships (designed with ww2 lessons in mind) in the game do not have the AA that incorporate the lessons learned in this respect 

Not really...

Bourgeone and Repu have post WWII AA guns...

All other Tier X BB have improved AA compared to the wartime configuration of preceeding wartime ships.

5 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

There were a few, not so many CV that were attacked, during ww2, burned and did not sank. Mind you especially the british CVs, that had armoured decks. Yes...they bring armor in play. Extrapolate that to ships that have more armor to bring to the table. Even a cruiser has more armor that those british cvs. And still in game they burn and sink.

When a ship burns, armor does not help much. And as I explained, we have the fire mechanic from Tier I on. Your issue is not a Tier X issue.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DACRO]
Players
22 posts
12,046 battles
3 minutes ago, DasTongle said:

Please realise the Date: 7th April 1945

So we talk Yamato in her final upgrade best posible AA Defence.

Anyhow that is not the point there.

I think you do not remember the carriers of old that decided that if you have to be oblitterated you are dead, PERIOD. Now you get moslest whole game that is much better whilst much more annoying.

You don't want midway in her launch configuration , just saying, i still remember a time where she came with Jetplanes.

 

And honestly all your argumentation is not really helping as you wish to prefer one or several ships over the others on the tier, sure CVs are annoying and one can argue a little out of place with their current concept but beyond that. A Smolensk can be dev struck, you also outrange her in most cases and her fire chance is not that much of a problem if you are not a camping stationary target.

Thank you, i know very well that date, and i know quite some things about that. But we ALL do agree, the AA the IJN had in the WW2 was some of the worst. You give the example of the worst AA against the best CV. Midway in launch config had NO jetplanes. It had after 1948. And it took a rebuild and a relaunch in 1955 in order to be able to use Jetplanes at full capacity.

Smolensk...oh. Outrange: most of the firefight in a game takes place under 18 km , where the Smolensk can open the hose with he. So no, i wont take the argument oyu outrange it. If you want to outrange it you wont be able to shoot it...should i remind the speed boost smoke and etc..."can be dev struck" wellm you are talking about the least number of cases. In 80% of the gameplay, the Smolensk fares well and shits on whatever is nearby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DACRO]
Players
22 posts
12,046 battles
6 minutes ago, radius77 said:

 

So YOU are either:

 

- a smoke AP/HE spammer that got blind-fired and nuked by BB

- a BB that parked bow-on in one place for whole game and got raped by some DD

- a DD that overextended and got caught by some AP/HE spammer.

 

It's perfectly fine. You just need more practice to get around with WoWs. 

I'd gladly answer to you if you'd offer a decent, respectful argument, not labeling, which is why i wont bother answering on point to you. Putting names is a disease of imaturity and i suspect you have this habit from too much eating social media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
[TTT]
Players
1,573 posts
13,742 battles
1 minute ago, mirceasml said:

Thank you, i know very well that date, and i know quite some things about that. But we ALL do agree, the AA the IJN had in the WW2 was some of the worst. You give the example of the worst AA against the best CV. Midway in launch config had NO jetplanes. It had after 1948. And it took a rebuild and a relaunch in 1955 in order to be able to use Jetplanes at full capacity.

Smolensk...oh. Outrange: most of the firefight in a game takes place under 18 km , where the Smolensk can open the hose with he. So no, i wont take the argument oyu outrange it. If you want to outrange it you wont be able to shoot it...should i remind the speed boost smoke and etc..."can be dev struck" wellm you are talking about the least number of cases. In 80% of the gameplay, the Smolensk fares well and shits on whatever is nearby.

Seriously i tried a normal conversation and now for the lols trying it again

WOWS MIDWAY did come with Jetplanes, i do still rember that. And the refits and rebuilds are imaterial to that fact.

It is rather amusing how you insist on dates when it comes to arguments but can not take an argument datebased when it comes to Yamato.

 

Smolensk can be starved out be either not firing and sneaking up on him or not to be in his range to begin with, she is not at all the monster you make her out to be and that is by now even proven by the stats the ship produces. PLUS she got a significant nerf witht he IFHE Rework.

 

I also tend to agree that most issues described only come up if you are stationary or just runing on a flank. Without any sort of exit strategy.

Being defensive about that is fine, but then i would ask for some visual examples as in replays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DACRO]
Players
22 posts
12,046 battles
12 minutes ago, HaachamaShipping said:

I feel like WG isn't the only one that has to remember this is a game, it has to have some balance.

Maybe a T10 DD should have a fighting chance against a T10 BB and not just get absolutely demolished as would be the case IRL because a BB is just a way better (and more expensive) gun platform? IRL, something like a Des Moines would have no place fighting a Montana, because it'd just get utterly demolished. So can you please heed your own advice and not be whiny about BBs having drawbacks to bring them in line? It's not like BBs are suffering either, there's a reason the MM queue is predominantly BBs most of the time, BBs still do on average the most damage and survive the most, despite having worse dpm.

 

Also, contrary to popular belief, a BB is as likely to be set on fire as any other class. It just burns twice as long, which against something like Smolensk doesn't matter, because if you are under sustained fire, you get set on fire again just as you put it out, so fire duration is pointless. But BBs have the same fire resistance and same amount of potential fires on their ship as any other class, though they are on 80% of the tiers the sole class where it is standard that every member of the class gets a repair party.

 

I like your argument, you put on table logic and counters. Maybe i had a too narrow focus abou BB vs CV, i wanted to talk about general imbalances and too many weaknesses af a certain ships vs another one. I believe that a ships should have both weakness and counter to any other ship in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
5 minutes ago, mirceasml said:

I like your argument, you put on table logic and counters. Maybe i had a too narrow focus abou BB vs CV, i wanted to talk about general imbalances and too many weaknesses af a certain ships vs another one. I believe that a ships should have both weakness and counter to any other ship in the game.

For the most part, the game is fine, CVs are an issue, because there's not a real "counterplay" except to try to minimise the amount of damage a strike thus by maneuvering to present the least target area and hoping you waste their time enough. Many times, that can be absolutely impossible, as it means broadsiding the enemy team and just dying even faster, which sucks. But apart from CVs, I don't see a big class imbalance and the weaknesses of BBs are compensated by a good number of strengths.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
489 posts
6,329 battles

Counterpoint: Tier X is where the playing field is level. If one has problems at tier X, maybe one needs to get better.

 

This doesn't mean that players are great or CVs are not a problem. However, if you're doing better at tier VI than at X, maybe you have good ships with 19-point captains? Maybe you play in divisions with your good ships and 19-point captains? Do you know how fun it is, playing an Icarus, or a Gaede (to advance the line) with an 8 or 9-point captain and getting RPF constantly? Not to mention tiers IV and V, where the special CV players live.

 

At tier X there is none of that. I am by no means good, but I enjoy tier X more than any other. I don't have problems with Smolensks or CVs, I counter them. And if they're driven by good players, I get sunk by them,  or burnt to a crisp. That's fine, losses happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×