MelonFlavoredShells

The old version had smoke too.

They are not likely to push if their DD is arbitrarily laying smoke in the middle of them instead of in front of them, spotting and contesting the cap. I also play quite a few BBs, and smoke does very little good for a BB that is firing. Like my Montana's 17.4 km detection range while firing in smoke. This is why I only deploy it for BBs that need to disengage, usually ones under heavy fire. I also have no problem with you, I simply disagree with you. You just have a different opinion, which is likely caused by the differences in the way we prefer to play our destroyers.

You are making a lot of assumptions about how I play DDs. First off, I do not play torpedo boats. I do not just "spot and shoot torpedoes." I play gunboat destroyers (mostly USN and UK) and contest caps. By sticking with my team in a blob, I gimp my most effective armament and lose control over the caps. By losing the caps, I lose any sort of initiative that I could've built for the team, and often just get to watch them run around like a chicken with its head cut off. Smoke can only do so much at that point, especially British DD smoke. BBs will be spotted at any effective combat range while firing, smoke or not. It's only useful to help them disengage. Cruisers can benefit from it, but I won't pop smoke unless I know they're actually going to use it.

Popping smoke is not a universal solution. It requires good positioning or else you get radar'd. More often than not, you end up being forced back toward your team to survive, but you aren't useful when sitting in a blob with the rest of your team. DDs are a class that relies entirely on stealth to accomplish anything, and CVs are the masters of vision control. This is my problem with them. This has always been my problem with them.

Thank you for assuming my position for me, clearly you know what I think better than I do. I'm not asking you to main DDs before having an opinion (I don't main them either), but I do think you should at least have the decency to play the class before declaring it as perfectly fine and telling people who disagree to get good. Your screenshots hardly count as sufficient evidence. You provide no context as to what the carriers in those games were doing. Were they hounding the DDs and spotting like a good player would? Or are they just potatoing at the back of the map spinning their planes in circles? With the former, you'd have a point - the latter, not so much.

There is a reason that I used single quotes and not double. He did not directly say "get gud," but there is a strong implication of it in both his original post and the title. As for ad hominem attacks, you are correct. Nobody has ever accused the people on this forum of being particularly good arguers. I think that the OP's use of anecdotal evidence through the medium of cherry-picked screenshots without the context of the situation in the match, combined with his lack of personal experience with the class means that his analysis of the rework's effect on DD gameplay is surface-level (no pun intended) at best.

Ad hominem attacks are a fallacy of relevance. You attack something about the person that is in no way relevant to the argument itself. Bringing up the OP's lack of experience in DDs is relevant, given that he is currently telling DD players to 'get gud.'

Technically speaking, it could be a fact. Even if it is, it would not be through his reasoning. I will admit that I wrote that post without the greatest care and made a mistake. It was not my intention to argue over the truth of the claim itself, but rather to point out that his reasoning does not support it. You have assumed that I am on the opposite side of the argument from you. I have not actually stated my position on the matter. Even if what you were saying is true, and I did hold my own opinions as facts without any evidence to support it, it wouldn't make you right - it would make us both wrong. Your argument was that the changes were a good idea. You did not prove it, you merely asserted it. MM functioning within its new parameters does not prove that it's a good idea either - it only proves that it functions.

Whether it was a good idea or not is your opinion, not a fact. Assuming it as the truth without actually demonstrating it is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question." Appealing to the crowd doesn't make it a good idea either - keep this in mind the next time your team forms a lemming train in a Random Battle.

Except that is not what he said. Let's take a closer look at this, my dear Watson...

A ship doesn't need a buff just because you struggle to do well in it. You aren't even asking for a buff, you're asking for it to become a completely different ship.

What I meant was that it did not directly nerf any of the major characteristics of the ship. It's a soft nerf.

It's indirectly reducing the defensive capabilities of the ship. If this was a direct nerf on the defining characteristics of the ship, then I'd sympathize with the OP a bit more. Edit: My point is that I don't think that a nerf of this scale warrants the sort of outrage I have seen, which seems to stem from its "premium" status.

So basically, you're saying that these premiums shouldn't be touched because you can buy them? Have you ever considered that these ships might actually be over-performing and are detrimental to the gaming experience of others? I guess they can just suck it up, as long as they don't touch your shiny toys. A 15 second fire increase isn't even that bad, get over it.

I always wondered why the success I've had with DoY's AP never seemed to translate to the KGV. Thanks OP!