Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

118 Valued poster

About BrandonKF

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

911 profile views
  1. Who have you seen in game

    @Spooooooooooooooooooooon Thanks. But I've been having rough times with Kurfurst and teams.
  2. I did read the reviews. Even with the 100mm secondaries actually capable of damaging tiers 9 and 10 destroyers without IFHE, I can't see as how that would offset the weak citadel protection of the vessel, it's poor maneuverability, or it's weak torpedo damage reduction. I suppose my question to you would be why it isn't fun to play. But with this: I'm done trying to discuss this subject when I'm getting this sort of response more and more often.
  3. I am not trolling, enderland. Neither am I going to let you or someone else force me out based on provocation and a desire to see nothing change because it suits your point of view. If you suggested making IFHE cheaper, I did not see it. Secondly, if one did, what would replace it as a 4 point skill? I have played quite a few matches in a destroyer myself. So I am aware of the difference. Okay. You reminded me of someone. My point being, it is a flat boost. It is not an RPG based skill that grows over time. I am a tabletop wargame and RPG fan, so I think you know what I am speaking about. Yes. On very rare occasions, you might see it do 190-220 damage to either. But that is the outlier result. Which others would then argue is why you have to take Manual Fire Control to offset the horrible aim. But all MFC does is aim for the hull line. Which again, the 100mm guns at 1/6 pen will more often than not shatter or bounce without IFHE. German battleships do not have this issue because they do not run 100mms, and because they were given 1/4 pen for their HE. Yes. They started a fire. Insofar as driving close to a destroyer, more often than not I find myself having to push smoke when no one else wants to, so I am very familiar with the results. Sometimes I'll get the destroyer before it torpedoes me, but that is only sometimes. Likewise in instances where I have a destroyer come around on a flank when I am trying to deal with one or two targets on my other side, and I'm left using only torpedoes to try and sink it because my main guns will not get around in time. You can call it a misplay, but more often it happens because a quarter of my team melts and I am left trying to make up the difference.
  4. Arguing semantics does not make your case. Didn't they teach you that in philosophy, bub? Your counterargument is lowball. Good day to you.
  5. And again, 1,000 matches is a portion of statistics you cannot ignore. Plus however many the French battleships equipped with them have had. Good try.
  6. Yes, you conceded you would not test the guns, and instead decided to cop out based on win rate. Godspeed.
  7. Neither can I help you, clearly, if that is as far as your argument goes. It is not immaterial. And you just said as much you will not test it. Get back to whatever you were doing before you decided to argue the point.
  8. And all you have come up with is arguments referencing science as proof of your theory, plus win rate. Work harder at proving the 100mm secondaries are not underpowered or next to useless. For your standpoint. Because one has to concede to evidence. Yet you have not proved the opposite case that the 100mm secondaries are useful in their role! Now find your evidence.
  9. Sarcasm with science, great comeback. Again. You fail miserably to bring up anything but "cuzmahscience" arguments in an attempt to troll. Keep your sarcasm. Over how many matches? You just proved it for me. And if someone at WG take it under advisement that the 100mm secondaries could use a buff and such stats support the statement, than your arguments are meaningless. Much as you have done here, invoking scientific methods when we are discussing a game using statistics that back up my point that the 100mm secondaries are underpowered for their tier.
  10. Grow up. Again using scientific morals and ethos as though they give you "high ground". I'm sure. How many matches? 75,000? After 6 months? A poor showing in light of however many matches other ships have been fighting. Tell that to the vast majority who drive her and quit. And yet its penetration is highest at 10 kilometers and less. I won't. But it is a balance factor for battleships. See above. The majority are the ones who drive the vessel more often than you. I do not have to use sarcasm when I can tear down your arguments so easily.
  11. You do that, considering Carlin was likely referencing you in the process, sir. Godspeed. Edit: You clearly cannot decipher my meaning because you are too arrogant to deal with it in your own head.
  12. My apologies if I did not know the difference. My point stands. I believe I shove back just fine against arrogance. You had to enter into a "philosophical" debate to make a point. No you have not. Not on Public server, I know that. All of which I have expressed desires to address. Then again why are Japanese main guns given such high performance at shorter ranges but drop off so steadily at mid to long range? You were not "helping", you were offering your opinion to another poster who offered the same compromise as I did. As you say, your "help" put you flat on your face. Wrong. If you are going to call them secondaries they should be more than just popguns. To wit: Barring in tiers 8+ where they can garner enough damage in close quarters to finish off a destroyer, you mean. Every ship should put fear into every other ship. Not the majority of MO players, I assure you. Then stay out because your work is laughable.
  13. You are the one being lazy by referencing a psychologist term to excuse it. I'll be arrogant right back. I'll shove back. You play a Kii much? Ever see how inaccurate and trollish its guns are? 100mm secondaries are not merely AA alone. Otherwise they wouldn't be called secondaries. Granting them the capability to damage tier 8+ destroyers is not a "nerf" of tier 8+ destroyers, it is a buff to the battleships that often do not have the maneuverability to torpbeat around incoming destroyer torpedo walls. It allows said battleships to push smoke screens with a little more confidence than "I hope RNG lets me hit this destroyer every 30 seconds." Likewise with cruisers that may try a flanking maneuver on saidsame ships that can troll with 5 or 8 second main guns.
  14. It is recognized by players like you who make the excuses. Screw your arrogance and your perceived superiority complex of what is or is not ignorant. I made the case, clearly, and you detractors are the ones stuffing your fingers in your ears and screaming it should not be so.
  15. Mine has merit. The argument does not. Neither does your fallacy. Or would you rather try brawling in a Kii yourself and see what the results look like?