S4pp3R

Wow... You'd think to keep perspective on the game at least 1 morning or arvo session a week would be standard policy... I have a couple of friends in the industry and this is usually the go for them because the moment you stop being a player you are creating a divide with your customers...

Not exactly what I'd call 'ideal' solutions but far more simple and easy to implement, also far more likely. Anything that improves MM is a good idea. Good video mate

JB, hands down

Yeah 151 is in!!

Yeah the amount of times I've lost a star because the last one/two were busy saving theirs... ... Having said that I can carry a T5-8 game in almost every situation, 9-10 I just can't... It's like the balance or meta there is screwed up... ... ...

I don't like the gameplay from save a star but I like saving my stars, if they fixed the XP system to weight team play more maybe this wouldn't be an issue... Edit: I always play to win though

Would watch that... Just saying

Btw I absolutely have love this discourse, thankyou everyone! Also love how we are using Lewis as a metric...

Yamato is good but she's SOOOOOO boring to play IMO

Great post Rina! Totally agree!

No, I disagree with your absolute comparison. Balancing --purely-- for the 0.1% is a poor way to do it which was how your post read. You can balance for a majority of the player-base while still enabling good 'ol Lewis to be at his best. If you balance just for the 0.1% you are more likely to have extremely steep learning curves and absurdly high skill caps. I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting your post but it does read very absolute. Depth of play is good, absurd skill ceilings are not.

I disagree with a few of the comments. I won't multi-quote as my time is limited and I need to get to work. WG may have all the numbers but the numbers don't show the best solution to the issue; the numbers just 'are'. The numbers are also fallible when addressing a topic. A good example of this is 'Azuma is too squishy and we want her to push'. Their number conclusion was give an extra heal. This is the wrong number. The armour is the real issue and we all know that. Numbers don't provide the answer for you, that is the realm of the developer. The reason is that once a change has been made the existing numbers are redundant. As for Stalingrad/Moskva, 50mm is too much, simply drop it down to the next bracket, 32mm. Most BBs don't have 50mm so why the flip should a super cruiser have it? And using a F1 car 999 v Lewis Hamilton argument is a pretty poor example. Balancing a ship to the top 0.1% of players would mean the game would die very quickly. Obviously take that % of the population into account but you need to cater for a far wider audience. WG replying to threads: I don't expect them to reply to every single thread but there are games out there where high-level developers regularly address these sorts of questions. It's not always perfect but at least the player-base feels like they are being heard. Not sure if it's still the case (I've mostly stopped playing) but Overwatch was a good example of this. Excellent analysis and suggestion threads would often be replied to by the lead developer, even if it was "good idea, we'll look into this" or "we're working on something in this area at the moment". Now their balancing wasn't always perfect and is a much harder style of game to get perfect but it's a good example of devs communicating with the player-base. I should reiterate; I understand that the CV rework is a difficult thing to get right and I hope that it will get there in time, I really do. My issue is I think there have been some rather poor choices (sledgehammering if you like) with balance and changes since xmas. Fingers crossed it settles down and gets better in future patches!

Ummmmmmm. Unless I've completely missed something with IFHE it has almost zero to do with CVs (Carriers). I think you may be mixed up. IFHE is picked to increase HE shell penetration to compensate for the calibour v armour.

I understand what you are saying but let's be honest... Mods track these threads and if they have merit they will forward them to WGHQ. Yes, it can be hard to get through but listening to ideas of a thousand people will almost always beat one person. It's simply numbers. And I'm sorry but there are many games out there with very good balance change records, often due to big competitive scenes. They don't want to radically change something that has balance. I totally get the CV rework - and why and it's worked to a degree, however much I kinda prefer the RTS style but you can't say they've been doing a lot right this year... I didn't even mention radar changes for flips sake... 'Nerfing' radar, um, lol --- you just gave allied ships a window to pre-aim. Otherwise a minor second or two debuff for those that have already aimed. I don't want to get into a negative spiral, I've loved a lot of the changes WG has made but they've been a bit too sledgehammer-happy lately.

Yeah but why? CAs don't run it outside the purpose of countering Stalin/Moskva... I agree current IFHE is an issue but so many ships are based around that skill from DDs-CLs. Let's get them to get CVs in some sort of workable condition first perhaps?