Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

202 Valued poster

About Ranari

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ranari

    No love for the Bismarck in this meta?

    Her dispersion is the same as the Gneisenau's. You just don't notice it as much because of the 2 extra shells. :) What you have to understand though is that the meta is player defined. The biggest problem with the Bismarck is that she lacks overall lethality thanks to her under performing secondaries, as 2/3rds of her DPM is below that important 19mm threshold. The next patch should address a lot of that by moving the 105mm guns to the 1/4 pen rule, and along with the changes to how HE pen works, should be 26mm. That said, she still has a flaw with her rear 105mm turret. It doesn't fire over top of the 150mm battery below it, whereas the others do. But that's the thing. If players can't use the tools available on a ship, they'll just go to the next one. You can play a Bismarck like a traditional dreadnought, but why do that when a North Carolina or Amagi performs in that role substantially better? This is why players state that the Bismarck doesn't fit the meta: She sucks in a traditional dreadnought role, and she currently doesn't have the tools necessary to function in her intended role. All that said, FDG is amazing. She got buffed last fall 2018 and she's a friggin' monster now. If you play her in her intended role (CQC), she just dominates everything. It's great.
  2. Ranari

    A CV Story

    I'm not sure how to react to this video rofl. But I agree with it!
  3. Pretty much this. Surface ships got what they want. CV players are focusing almost exclusively on DD's instead.
  4. (Specifically in regards to the Massachusetts) As a BB player who doesn't take IFHE on my Massachusetts, I find the benefit of IFHE for its secondaries to be grossly overstated. Secondary performance vs cruisers is really of little concern. Cruisers just don't stay in secondary range for very long, and the Massachusetts' 16" guns take care of the rest when they do. The most important targets that your secondaries need to be able to damage are battleships and destroyers. Due to its 20mm base penetration, this is more than sufficient to penetrate the 19mm destroyer plating and 19mm superstructure plating of T8+ battleships. Like cruisers, 16" guns make quick work of 25mm plated T6/7 battleships. They just don't last long to be of concern. Keep in mind that taking IFHE actually reduces the Massachusetts' secondary performance vs T8+ destroyers and battleships. A lot of players might "feel" that IFHE is helping them in these situations, but that is categorically false; there are zero armor thresholds crossed in these situations. What players WILL find, assuming these changes make it to live (not sure if they will, honestly), is that Massachusetts without IFHE isn't the castrated ship everyone thinks it'll be. Quite the opposite, actually. Now the 1/4 pen rule change potentially coming to the Bismarck et all? This is enormously significant because it puts 100% of its secondary battery above that magic 19mm+ threshold. Based on the rule change, the Bismarck/Tirpitz should be able to penetrate 26mm. That'll be superb.
  5. Ranari

    Massachusetts: So far very underwhelming

    The DPS gained from the improved accuracy of Manual Secondaries is very significant. Like the other poster said, it's more about focusing down your target, not spreading around tiny bits of damage across a wide array of targets. IFHE on the Massachusetts only helps against T8/T9 cruisers. You actually hurt your effectiveness against T8+ battleships.
  6. Ranari

    CV summit 2010 posted by Flamu

    Like a lot of you guys, I play all classes. Honestly I think one of the biggest issues with playing CV's right now is the MM. When you're top tier, you can play and still feel like you contribute to the game. If you're bottom tier though, then it's like you can't do anything at all until late in the game. I realize everyone is at a disadvantage when bottom tiered, but it's the most extreme with CV play. This. Bolded part. This.
  7. Ranari

    HMS Nelson

    Her armor belt is pretty normal. It's just that she's sporting 16" guns at T7 where she faces A LOT of opponents that can overmatch her.
  8. Ranari

    Moving Colorado to Tier 6

    I'd rather the Colorado get the West Virginia '44 treatment. This would improve her deck armor, AA, secondaries, and TDS. Keep her at 21 knots - that's fine. Just make her a 21 knot monstrosity. And to be fair, the Colorado with a 2.0 sigma is pretty fearsome. Her guns are excellent at T7.
  9. It only helps against cruisers, which are not a huge threat to the Massachusetts' 16" guns.
  10. I run my Massachusetts with PT, PM, AR, BFT, AFT, MS, and CE. I do not use IFHE. Here's the most definitive scoop on IFHE for both Massachusetts and Georgia. The base penetration on the Mass/Georgia secondaries is 20mm. This is all the penetration you need to damage destroyers and battleships, as taking IFHE provides zero extra benefit against these targets. Both destroyers and battleships are your primary threats for your secondaries to chew on. IFHE helps vs cruisers only. But! You are a battleship. The main batteries on battleships are disproportionately powerful vs cruisers. Cruisers also rarely come into secondary range, or when they do, they don't survive long enough for your secondaries to really chew on, unlike destroyers and battleships. This is why I don't take IFHE on my Massachusetts, and I've broken 100k damage from secondaries alone w/o IFHE. It's just not as critical as people think it is.
  11. I take responsibility for what I wrote, but I know that wasn't my intent. I my intention was to make a comparison of the OP's behavior to another similarly distasteful act, not infer the recipient of the OP's call-out to be mentally handicapped. I will be more clear next time. Still, I find any calling out of lesser player's performance to be in very poor taste.
  12. I am in no way inferring that the player is mentally handicapped. There's a reason I used the word "too" there. But I am calling you out for being a jerk for stat shaming.
  13. I am in no way inferring that the player is handicapped. Where do you get that in my statement? But I am calling out the OP for making fun of a player whose stats aren't very good.
  14. Wow, way to be a complete jerk. Do you make fun of mentally handicapped kids irl, too?
  15. Ranari

    I want the game I paid for back.

    Blame them? Let's me be clear here. The players who curse me in chat that I'm targeting them are literally the ones who are sailing out on their own and presenting themselves to be the easiest, most convenient target available. If players don't reflect and learn from their mistakes then that's on them. I'm not going to coddle those players. As for ruining the game? I greatly disagree. The game was designed with carriers from the beginning, and were always meant to be a part of this game. There are significant flaws in the DD/CA/CL/BB-only meta that most players don't realize that the presence of a CV acts as a counter to prevent. I mean, do you realize that in non-CV games that the team who loses the first DD ends up losing 70-80% of the time? That's fun to you? I play all types of ships. I don't have a single problem with CV's in my games. Why is it I, and others, can enjoy this game with CV's, but you can't?