Kebobstuzov

You never know tbh, from about 10k to 11k alone I went up from about 64.75 to 65.5 or whatever it is at this point. Point is, even with high battle counts its possible to make decent progress. Good work so far, solo winrates are always a good indicator of personal progression.

They post timeframes and what can be earned and how much at any given time. If you fall short and were unaware that's not a WG problem.

I must say that I love the Ducas, especially the Abruzzi because I've done very well with them but they also just look SO good. Excited to see some more fantastic looking ships enter the game, definitely going to have to come back for these.

Your credibility is out the window when you say that. The Duca Degli Abruzzi is incredibly strong as a flank cruiser for T7, essentially the T7 equivalent of the Henri. If this is your idea of garbage, this line is probably gonna be pretty good. All seriousness though, judging the ships now is pointless, once they are in game and we see how the few good players who have access to testing it perform, we will see if they are any good. Like I said, impossible to tell at the moment, there were people who thought stalingrad and Bourgogne were going to be terrible, until they started being tested.

Yes. It is. If you look at battles played and compare to other ships of the same tier and class you start to see what those stats ACTUALLY mean. They tell you, as expected, the avg winrate of a cruiser is about the same as the average winrate of a battleship, about 50%. This is obvious without even needing statistics because If a Battleship player wins a game, a battleship player on the other side loses. If a cruiser player wins a game, a cruiser player on the other side loses a game. Battleships aren't winning more than cruisers, and cruisers aren't winning more than battleships, that really isn't possible. Ships like kremlin and Bourgogne are more readily available to experienced and/or better players, so they have inflated stats but low battle counts. Alternatively ships like Montana and Yamato have much more battles because more people have them, but the average player skill of someone using those ships is also much lower. BBs at t10 are high highs and low lows, cruisers fall more evenly towards the middle compared to each other, which is what is giving you the illusion that they are worse. If you take a minute to try to understand what the stats and charts you are using mean, you can start to see why your argument on the subject is fundamentally flawed. Using your own chart you shared earlier, I can see that BBs are not performing better overall than cruisers.

The data you gave tells NOTHING about the balance between BBs and CA/CLs.... It only tells of balance between ships within the same class. If you look at top 5%s and top 10%s for T10 cruisers and T10 BBs you will see that cruisers consistently have higher winrates when played to a high level, because as I said they have a higher skill ceiling, which makes them better. Judging balance based on overall server averages is a flawed ideal because you are looking at what a bad player can do with the ships. Looking at what someone who knows how to use the ships can do tells you MUCH more about the stats. These stats are all available on warships today as well. If you use stats that pertain to your argument, your argument is stronger. Your stats had nothing to do with your argument.

You cannot say "the ships with top winrates are BBs and therefore BBs are best" because every time a BB wins, another BB loses. Every time a cruiser wins, another Cruiser loses. All that table shows is that there is perhaps a larger imbalance between the T10 BBs among themselves. Cruisers are the most versatile and able to fend off and often win 1v1 against all other classes. They are maneuverable enough not to get dumpstered by BBs, they have the utility to survive and often find DDs, They have the speed and turning to reposition, and they have the DPM and range to constantly have an impact on priority targets. Overall, the most versatile ships, cruisers, are of course going to be the strongest. I've been playing this game a long time, and have a very strong understanding of just about every part of it, so my viewpoint of course will differ from yours, but to say that BBs are the strongest class, typically indicates a player who themselves lack advanced understanding of the game and are of a lower skill level. BBs are typically the low skill floor but lower ceiling ships, while cruisers are high skill floor, but high skill ceiling meaning a poor player will do better in BBs than Cruisers, but a good player can utilize their skill to be of greater impact and maximize their usefulness in a cruiser due to its higher potential. This becomes clear to those that take the time to understand the game well, which tends to correlate to their individual winrates as well.

Please elaborate how the truth is "horses**t"? What statistics are you trying to compare on that link? winrate? not relevant to compare different classes. And using server averages is a mistake, because the average scores are all incredibly low for just about every ship. Not sure why we can't have a decent discussion about class balance before someone gets upset that someone who knows better disagrees with their opinion.

I'm referring to world of warships, with the assumption the player in said ship is good at the game. For someone who is a capable wows player, cruisers, especially at high tier, are the strongest. This is agreed upon almost unanimously among good players. When you become one of those you will understand instead of trying to make a joke of this fact and referencing humor.

Cruisers are the strongest surface ships especially at high tier, so technically you could say BB drivers would be right about that. But anyone who only plays a single class doesn't understand enough to give a reasonable opinion on it

BB's don't get lucky most of the time, it sounds like you are just not paying attention to incoming fire. There are a LOT of reasons to quit, many good players quit because the game does not reward skill as it used to, but getting deleted is just something that happens to new and/or bad players, just learn from it and improve, the game is not difficult at the end of the day to a man who pays attention.

Can you elaborate what was wrong with her post? It seemed fairly reasonable to me. Weird to have such toxicity from a PVE player considering y'all preach how toxic randoms are btw. Opinions are the point of a thread like this. We are all welcome to one. Seems you're a part of the "problem" within the playerbase.

Proposed change tells you if you take IFHE, you are gonna kill things, if you don't you farm things.

PR is useful but inherently flawed yeah. It's better than WTR, but as I said in some other posts, there are many many bad players with superunicum PR because they devote their time to playing PR farm ships, ships the community is bad at but have high potential. Many stats are convoluted and abusable, but winrates are straightforward, which is why those are what most serious players look at primarily.

I think an important thing to clarify, is your hitrate with torpedoes often should be expected to be VERY low and that is a GOOD thing. I have incredibly low torp hitrates, usually below average. But below average torp hit rate is often a sign you are playing better than the people with higher hitrates. Zoning torps, or predictive torps through smokes or chokepoints can be effective without hitting and are better than just holding for minutes at a time waiting for a good target. If ya got em with no clear upcoming use, send em. Winrate and solo winrate are all that matter. Even gun hit percentages can be misleading because many top players will fire blind into smokes or potential camp spots.